The 18.1 inch Naval Gun - Origins and Development 

In her last action HMS Repluse was doing torpedo beats at level 100, did any other ships have to do dodge torpedos as much and did they survive the attack?

Why build a 3-gun instead of a triple turret?

while it is said that the 18 inch/47 caliber gun was most likely not going to be able to fit on a triple turret without making possible sacrifices to speed on a panamax (aka Iowa) hull. Could the 16 inch/56 caliber gun (either the prototype or a more purpose built design) have been fitted in a triple turret on the Iowa/Montana hull form instead?

Sanshiki doesn't mean anti aircraft, it simply means Type 3.

Assuming their conversion never took place, how would you redesign the Lexington class battlecruisers?

Considering that the tests with other guns caused those to explode after less than a dozen shots fired, guns not exploding was a good thing in comparison to that.

USS Princeton and Thomas Walker Gilmer have entered the chat.

As opposed to the Mark 14, where it didn't blow up and that made everyone (except Bureau of Ordnance) very angry.

This reminds me of the old custom form the very early history of guns, when the founder of a gun had stand next to it, when the first test shots were fired

@@walterpleyer261 Huh, well thats one way to make sure that a gun maker puts their best effort into making a strong firearm.

日本語で失礼しますけど例えワシントン海軍軍縮条約が締結されなくても日本海軍は46センチ以上の大砲を持って巨大戦艦を建造したと思います。ロンドン海軍軍縮条約を破棄して大和型戦艦を建造しても更に巨大な51センチ砲を搭載する巨大戦艦を計画した位ですから。アメリカ相手に物量では太刀打ち出来ないですから。

Both Japan and the USA would have faced the N3 class plus their follow on classes

The treaty was quite favourable to Japan, in that they got such a large allocation of tonnage, while the US and British had to give up a lot of their (planned) fleets. Without the treaty, especially the USN would have been a lot bigger. Its not just battleships, its everything planned for the USN and the British response. The Japanese had nowhere near the economy to compete with that. Further such a new arms race, would have quickly made the existing Japanese fleet, obsolescent. So basically what happened when the treaties expired. The Americans crushed the IJN with both numbers of ships the Americans could build and in a lot of cases, also better ships than the Japanese could make. Fletcher, Cleveland, Baltimore and the Essex classes where overall better ships.

I never thought about that before, there likely wouldn’t have just been 1 or 2 US, Battleships with 18” guns, there’d likely have been several classes with 18” guns as long as Japan kept building larger and larger ships

@@DanielWW2 The issue is that as of 1920 when the ships were being designed the US would have faced the IJN and the RN as a combined force

Indeed yes. But also there were exceptions. Japanese also had up to 5.7 feet tall men along their troops. Most of population were thinking theese people were "touched" by Yokais spirits.

No land to grow beef. Not kidding.

I tell you what, them boys there needed them some of that there raw milk.

Any pics of this lathe?@@3socksMorgan

We need the equipment to build more space battleships

Never underestimate the gaming community.

@@krispypriest5116 There is a 1:1 scale of Yamato's deck (Forgot whether it's the fore or aft deck) in the park near the museum. The Clayton Bay Hotel in Kure also has a special room at the same height as the Yamato's command centre. And one of the chef there is the descendant of the chief cook on board the Zuikaku. Not to mention the various Ship Memorial sites littered across the town. The entire town is listed as one of the various Sacred Sites for KanColle.

@@bobo-cc1xwLast time I visited the Yamato museum they had a Space Battleship Yamato gallery with models and cel art from the early movies. I don't know if it's still there.

A great source for naval knowledge, including building guns, is the "Pacific War encyclopedia" found online. It's one of the most extensive military history sources I've ever found. Its only downside is deals exclusively with WW2 in the Pacific, but boy, is it packed with info.

Drachinifel does produce more videos at higher quality levels than we can usually get from one "presenter" or "creator". Drach always tries so hard to give such accurate and verified historical information on these ships. 😊

Middleclass.....Between Drach and Mark Felton. I never realized how much military history I didn't know. Love BOTH channels...

Drach is my clear favorite channel by far

​@@FlorentinoRebuildingCo.5644 I stopped watching felton after his meltdown videos about some tour he went on. Is he normal again?

@@andrewthomson seems more closer to normal recently. He is bring up interesting topics on his YT Channel. Most recently: panther tank turrets used a buried gun bunkers....seems very interesting.

Aren't common rounds and SAP are often interchangeable depending on specifics?

@@willyvereb The difference is that common rounds are not made of hardened steel unlike semi-armor piercing rounds, also common rounds have more explosive filler percentage than SAP

Went all the way through the U.S. Destroyer's in the Philippines.

​@@nicholausbuthmann1421 That's because DDs have no armour, only structural plating, which is the equivalent of wet tissue paper to the fuse of any BB main calibre round. And even that plating is thinner than that of most cruisers. A cruiser on the other hand has anywhere between 50-80% thicker plating, and then actual armour in some places. They are also much wider, deeper and longer, meaning more time for a fuse to arm.

​@@gustavchambert7072The fuse arms after leaving the barrel. Impact with the target initiates the fuse which then detonates after a predetermined number of milliseconds.

For supporting amphibious landings. When you want to turn the beach and everything up to 5KM inland into a parking lot.

Sounds very American lol

Volume of fire in most battles is what wins, instead of a few super cannons. Its still insane to me they made such rounds though.

@@everythingsalright1121 Volume of air taken up by AA is what wins battles since the AA accuracy was stupidly low in WW2. The "fill the air with lead" method was the standard practice, which on average AA guns meant high rates of fire, but when you have 18.1 inch flak cannons that could fire 1 to 2 shells every minute and cause a very large shrapnel cloud, the idea was feasible on paper. The problem was coordinated gun directing and experience with defense methods since they didn't fire the san shiki rounds often in drills.

Rex's hanger covers aircraft in this era he probably has what your looking for

CAM ships would probably make an interesting topic.

Another amazing source for WW2 aircraft is gregs airplanes and automobiles, although he might not have a video on those seaplanes

I think Drac would enjoy making his own video about this, though. He could focus more on the shipboard side of aircraft accomodation, perhaps.

He could also talk about how they influenced the design of said ships

Nope, there’s a good few dozen of them. Found a really cool colorized image of Musashi under air attacks at the battle of the Sibuyan Sea at a straight down view

Beautiful ship.

"It's perfectly safe as long as you are stay in the trench and don't look directly at it. Says the scientist who will be three miles behind us, in a reinforced concrete bunker." Random soldier at a Nevada atomic bomb test.

I was asking myself when people have taken cover and the turret fired if people were still able to hear the next warning 😂

That is wery small aditional charge comparing to firearms testin. Normal tormentation up to 200%, if remember well for old black gunpowder even up to 300%, since there are great deviations of burn speeds...

Fun animation

that shell allready existed in WWII, it was call the "San Shiki" and was made for multiple gun calibers. They were also used in shore bombardement of open areas, as in Guadalcanal.

Ahh, the "extended life" of an Imperial Japanese Navy ship. _Space Battleship Yamato_ was originally made for both "entertainment" and to resurrect "pride" in the armed forces of Imperial Japan, in their own way.

@@williestyle35 and before the wreck was discovered... and found to be broken in half...

@@jlvfr yes, like said in the video.

Actually, the USN tried to do the same thing with the Iowas (to the point AA fire manuals for the 16”/50 gun exist!). I doubt they would have been any more effective, even with the VT fuse-battleship main guns can’t rotate fast enough and have a nasty habit of rendering the actual AA and DP weapons unusable while being fired.

​@@bkjeong4302at the ranges these kinds of heavy, barrage AA guns fire, rotation speed is far less relevant than for the point defense guns. One of the few ways it could be relevant is if a squadron of torpedo bombers has split to attack from both bows and one group is circling at the edge of AA range (5 miles, maybe) to get into position. Although some quick math suggests that is less relevant than I first thought, since crossing at 150 knots at 10,000 yards is only about 0.5 degrees per second, much less than the 4 degree per second train rate for the turrets on the Iowas. Even bringing it into 4,000 yards where the Bofors mounts open up only increases the change in angle to about 1.2 degrees per second.

@@bkjeong4302I recall reading somewhere that the Tirpitz had AA shells for her main battery and fired them at Lancasters carrying Tallboy bombs on the fjord attacks. They had no reported effect.

​@@robertsneddon731 I dont recall Germany having any form of VT-like fuses for AA purposes. They had timed-fuse sensitive warheads. These would detonate at an altitude that had to be calculated. VT fused warheads do not need to be set. They detonate based off of proximity to the target being fired at. Not sure what you're trying to point out about Tirpitz....

These shells made a interesting fireworks but useless against aircraft in the real world

Šeems like it 🤣

More like the original .50 Action Express

A little more costly..... And not found in Detroit. Great call, though 😂😛🤔🧐

Blasts effects were actually an issue with battleship guns in general, though Yamato was unusual in that her other armaments were laid out to account for them (at the expense of wasted space, but building a new battleship at this point was already a waste for everybody).

@@bkjeong4302 Yeah, that's exactly what got me thinking. The conning tower on a US fast battleship was not a safe place to be when the guns were firing

A lot was tried, Tiger and Hood both took potshots at German aircraft in their respective wars, but only the IJN operationally deployed it as a matter of doctrine.

One of Bismarck 15 in shell splashes managed to remove the fabric flooring of a Swordfish piloted by Les Sayer during the attack on her by HMS Victorious

​@@UthurRytan"make sure your seatbelts are buckled, lads. That's a long first step!"

I think the designs of the _Montana_ class were a bit more beautiful for their size, but they were not built and that is my subjective opinion. On the other hand the Imperial Japanese Navy going "all in" on the biggest artillery gun they could possibly make.,. well that is impressive in an American kinda way.

Too bad Aircraft Carriers became the meta.

Video.

I was on the deck of my Navy destroyer, with no hearing protection, no warning that I heard, looking out to see at the rail, and about 150 feet away when the 5 inch gun went off. My expectation after this was that blood would be pouring out my ears, but despite my frantic attempts too see the blood on my hands, no blood. Lacking blood I can say “OUCH” was the next or first sensation perhaps. Fortunately it appears no permanent damage was done.

Well the 16”/50 has just as bad if not even worse record against enemy ships.

Except that a damaging straddle on white Plains put that CVE out of front line service

So Musashi never fired a round?

​@@howardhofelich1Aganist Aircraft? Yes. Against enemy battleship she was expected to fight? No.

The Iowas as well. IIRC Tirpitz did try to use AA main gun shells during one of the many raids thrown at her and only ended up making her AA weaker as a result.

I saw a documentary on the raid that sunk Tirpitz and the pilots said the Tirpitz was firing AA shells from the main guns at them.

But we need to know where the Yamato is in case the Gamalons attack!

@@bgcloWell, on the plus side, once the Gamalons do their thing you won't need the submersible.

Hell, they can dive in beer cans for all I care

Yep, Drachinifel has a very even vocal tone overall. Makes for "easy listening" and you can learn so much!

Same applies to the 16”/50 gun.

I sometimes wonder where capital ship design would have ended up if planes hadn't been invented?

Wish I could spot something specifically unusual. I see the usual mass of superstructure and spotting / observation towers.

Living the life you are 😊

White cheddar Cheez-Its I hope, easier to hide the Cheez-it/Cheetos dust.

They had the theoretical ability but never bothered going ahead with it as all the super-Yamatos were cancelled. IMO, the reduction in barrel count from 9 to 6 is too big a cost to justify an 20” gun, especially when the 18.1” is already arguably the most powerful battleship gun ever (tied for first place in penetration and unrivalled in bursting charge size while not being bad in other areas)

The weight of fire would actually go down IIRC - such huge guns would be very slow to load, and hit rate starts to really suffer when you fire so few shells. A hit would be devastating but hits are statistically less likely. Plus the blast and recoil have a huge effect on the ship itself, and (eg) open AAA mounts become uninhabitable on large parts of the ship.

No matter how big a shell is, it is only effective if it hits (or near-misses). Japanese long-range accuracy, or even mid-range accuracy was poor. The much slower reload rate and fewer barrels would only make this worse. A maneuvering fast battleship with good radar fire control could probably be within 16” range without much danger.

@@thomasbeach905 Japanese gunnery accuracy (*provided good visibility*) wasn’t that bad, and the accuracy of radar fire control’s been significantly exaggerated over the years to a level not supported by either actual combat or by contemporary live-fire tests.

germany did too, take a gander at the H-class blueprints. iirc 2 of the 5 plans sported 8 20" guns.

I think Drach mentioned in the past 'not really'. You want shells to penetrate deep in the armor before exploding, shaped charge pretty much explode on impact to maximize penetration. Also layers of bulkheads reduces the damage. I think the closest to a shape charge naval weapon would be a torpedo, surrounded by incompressible water, all the explosion is directed towards the hull...

Following up unto the previous comment, because of what was said, the only thing that would be vulnerable to a shaped charged naval shell would be areas with more confined space like that of a tank, would be the ship’s armoured conning tower or the main turrets or barbettes. However to hit a ship is already extremely improbable with a naval shell and to have a shaped charge shell to actually hit where it would be effective, which is frankly also against the most heavily protected parts of the ship, well the probability of that happening is even further far fetched. And it doesn’t help that Japanese turret designers incorportated armoured wall dividers for 41cm turrets after Nagato Class’ modernisation in the early 1930s which also extends to Yamato Class’ 46cm triple turrets. The same can be said to other rounds like HESH and honestly even APFSDS. APFSDS does not have a charge, it relies on its sheer kinetic impact to produce the needed thermal energy for its explosion, which will suffice if it hits confined spaces like those previously mentioned, but I am not confident if even a battleship sized apfsds penetrating rod, piercing the hull of a battleship, would produce a great enough explosion against its vast multilayer bulkheads designed to protect, contain shockwaves and reduce spalling from hits of full ap shells. Although a well placed hit would certainly pierce the protection and vitals of a ship with greater penetration than a typical AP shell, I doubt it would equal to the physical destructive power of a shockwave explosion of a typical ap shell that has managed to also pierce, travel deep into the ship and detonate its explosive charge successfully. This is why torpedoes capable of snapping a ship in 2 (with a combination of a larger charge, hitting the keel and the explosion causing cavitation under the ship) and anti ship missiles with magnitudes of order heavier explosive charges (than that of naval shells), capable of super sonic speeds, that would suffice in both charge and penetration power to frankly blanket the unarmoured upper structure of a ship from bow to stern in the blink of an eye… is the way to go now a days.

For a modern take on the concept see the BROACH tandem warhead as used on the Storm Shadow / Scalp missiles that Ukraine has used against Russian ships (and that drydocked sub). It has a shaped charge for making a hole that the second warhead then flies in through and explodes inside the ship/bunker/whatever.

@@la_potat6065 Dude, APFSDS doesn't explode at all; it just makes a hole and takes advantage of the fact that you don't waste space in an AFV with things like bunks and galleys to hopefully put that hole somewhere that matters. It's certainly hot after punching through the armor, which lets it start fires if it hits ammunition or fuel, but that's not the same thing.

@@boobah5643 Well you’re right APFSDS does not explode as its just a single material metal rod. However DU penetrator rods are pyrophoric with incendiary properties, when it fragments into fine dust, which reacts with the oxygen in the air, which would suffice in blanketing the tight crew space of a tank, although I don’t know if that is applicable against a shipsized vessel.

What do we remember? "Banzai charging" kamakazis or Musashi ? Or are sussid bomber simply good sense in the big picture, sparing lives and saving money? Not very heroic on many levels, but economics is like that.

Or destroyers, or submarines, or airplanes.

@@robertewalt7789The first two might be comparable, but airplanes were mostly made out of aluminum, so you can't just recycle the steel.

They are an example of Generals are always fully prepared to fight the last war. They were thought up when naval warfare was assumed to be ship vs ship. Advances in aircraft and submarine warfare weren't taken into proper consideration. Not the fault of the Japanese. Every navy in the 1930's assumed large battleships would be kings of warfare on the seas. You weren't a "real navy" if you didn't have a couple these floating fortresses.

Depends if you are talking about army infantry or naval infantry. In the former case, none because the IJN hated the IJA with a passion.

Oversimplified version. Long lengths of heated steel similar to rebar (Though a different alloy of metal) or metal bands are wound around a liner. Along with tension they are hammered creating sort of damascus shell around the liner. This is repeated until you have a desired length and strength. It provides both flexibility and strength when the gun is fired. It also means that if a particular batch of steel is faulty it can be tested and scrapped before final assembly so you don't have to restart the whole process. It's a variant of the oldest method of making barrels. They'd start with a hollow wood tube. Then wrap wire around the length to strengthen the barrel. Soon after the wood would be replaced by a metal tube (liner) but the exterior stayed the same. The final product looks like one giant piece of steel that's been turned on a huge lathe. But if you cut one in half and looked at it under magnification you can see the different layers.

Japan destroyed a lot of documents

The blast wave issues are a problem with battleship guns in general.

Ah yes, as Ryan, the curator of the Battleship New Jersey Museum, likes to call it, the "documentary" film Under Siege. The true-life events of that movie are now the stuff of legend!

No. No battleship ever had a recoil so strong or displacement so light that the recoil would move the ship.

Tbf, progress caught everyone off guard.

You can say this about literally every WWII-era battleship class. The Yamatos just get singled out for it because double standards.

@bkjeong4302 That and just as she was launched, Pearl Harbor happened. Her service record also is kinda sad for a ship so powerful. Her greatest display is her sinking when her captain did a fantastic job at sailing her. Yes he failed but a lot of US ordinance missed beforehand

@@SudrianTales She was actually fully completed and about to enter service by PH; she had been launched the previous year. Yamato ended up entering service right after Force Z which gave the IJN a conundrum as they realized how much they fucked up rhere.

@bkjeong4302 just realized I was thinking of Intrepid there. Yeah, Yamato was in a tough spot. 5 or so years earlier and she'd have done well