why have or rather why where catamaran and trimaran designs not explored for war ship in the era of big guns? would they have not been faster and harder to sink due to the redundancy ?
RU-vid's monetization nonsense is why I always recommend people use Patreon to support the RU-vidrs they watch. And yours is great because we can nominate and vote on future videos. That aside, an early Drydock is this perfect for post-Thanksgiving relaxing. Hope everyone in the States is having safe travels.
As someone who loves naval history and started watching this channel since November 2018, it’s amazing to see how the number of subscribers has grown exponentially in the last year. Keep up the great work!
Every drydock, I keep finding more little construction dudes standing about on different parts of the predreadnought! I just spotted one little chap up on the funnel! Let's have a Where's Wally (Waldo, for the yanks) competition. Post how many construction dudes you can see! I get 18 but there's a few blobs here and there which might be heads or legs of more.
Q&A steel forging vid; Where was the important elements in steel alloys sourced? particularly the ore, manganese, nickel, phosphates, coal/carbon, etc. ( in the empire presumably?) and did the U-boats try target these convoys? Other interesting question s When there's time: ii were any of the Union Castle liners converted to naval ships? iii) why did the royals and vanguard pay the royal visit to South Africa first, not other dominions? IV) were imperial yachts, eg Standardt or Höhenzollern and later Britannia, commissioned naval units l( eg ike air force I today?) V) how and where, on which Greek ship, was king Constantine of the Helene's born on Greek 'soil' while in South Africa during WWII?
Concerning the safety of turbo-electric powerplants, I'm not aware of any incidents where engine crew were electrocuted while in service or in action, the ease with which a ship's electrical grid can be isolated via breakers and insulation was actually one of the arguments in favour of its adoption. The only times a T-E powered ship lost power in combat I'm aware of involved the ship getting its boiler fires snuffed, which would have knocked out a non-electric drive just as well. Amusingly, modern ships have returned to turbo-electric drive, only with gas turbines (essentially jet engines) instead of steam boilers powering the generators. It goes back to efficiency again: (steam) turbo-electric drive promised greater efficiency than non-geared and early geared turbines in the 20's; geared turbines had improved by the 30's to where they could handle greater loads (I'm unclear about the efficiency balance); by the 60's the gas turbine and electric generators had once again risen above steam turbines for power and efficiency, where they've remained since.
until the Zumwalt and Ford class ships, and the latest assault amphibian class (America?). Huge radar loads, along with the need to power defensive phasers, along with the change to rail gun catapults drive the new designs. Zumwalt needs to shift power from drive to weapons to operate the phasers. I think the recently procured 300Kw units will eventually be replaced/upgraded to megawatt level devices. Power requirements to launch aircraft must be staggering. Steam is generated in the Fords but only to produce electricity, which is shunted to wherever needed. The Fords are particularly interesting in that they need to run at high speed while operating the rail gun catapults. Engineering magic-- --
Another factor in the move away from turboelectric was weight. A reduction gearbox was lighter than a motor+generator (plus all the additional stuff needed for the electrical switching and safety thereof) which was a weight savings for the treaty-limited designs of the 1930s.
I believe one of the reasons for the return to geared turbines in the fast battleships was because the geared turbines were a better balance of power/weight/fuel efficiency under the treaty regime in place with the technology of the day, not because they didn’t appreciate its performance.
HerrHornPlayer I also thought the treaty restrictions helped drive the USN to geared turbines. I’d read that the 30s era geared turbines were significantly lighter and more compact than the 30’s era turbo electric drives. So switching to geared turbines let you have smaller engineering spaces (less area to armor) and more of your 35,000 tons available for non-propulsion uses. Though a gear cutting bottleneck, limiting the number of reduction gearboxes the US could make during WWII, led to a couple classes of mid-war destroyer escorts (Buckley and Rudderow classes) going with turbo electric propulsion. As did the most of the hundreds of T2 tankers.
Thanks for the discussion on turbo electric drive vs geared drive. Interesting how the turbo electric drive using gas turbine generators is making an appearance again today as in the US Navy's three Zumwalt class ships given the downsides you presented.
As always a very interesting and informative video, I always enjoy your work. I would like to particularly thank you for the many 'what if' questions you answer. I know that the answers are only your opionions, but they all seem very plausible, and I appreciate your sticking your neck out.
I think the biggest difference with a modern construction age of sail ship would be the use of glulam for the structural members. That way you'd be able to make them as big and practically in whatever shape you wanted.
The US Navy returned to turboelectric drive in the Submarines USS Tullibee and USS Glenard P. Libscomb. If water came in contact with the generators you had a much bigger problem than electrocution.
The last time I was this early the Scharnhorst was a spaceship. Awesome and insightful work as always, do not let demonetization get in your way. Also, why did the Americans neglect their navy for so long after the Civil War? Obviously, after the Civil War, America had proven itself as a force to be reckoned with and a potential regional power to contend it, why did it wait a long period of time before it considered power projection seriously?
There was a social and government focus shift, out of wartime stance and in to occupation and rebuilding [in some cases]. The Reconstruction was an inward facing period.
Having a large navy was not a requirement since no great power was close enough to pose a serious invasion threat, and the continental US was in large part a self-sufficient economy. It was only when the US began to industrialize and become a trading force that the need for a navy to protect commerce and open up foreign markets began to grow.
No cash to run them. The US government suddenly became responsible for the south which was an economic basket case and still had severe debts for all the weaponry they had to buy in from foreign powers, plus all their own weapons manufacturers going bust since there wasnt a market any more. They hit a recession that they never really recovered from until WW1 when foreign governments paying in gold and cash for any weapons the US could produce allowed them to expand as well as providing trade routes that needed protecting. Its also a mistake to think foreign powers had been impressed by American military prowess, some of the technology had been impressive especially the way telegraph communications had been used and the way British railway advances and developments in turreted warships had been expanded but US military tactics and strategy were pitifully bad by european standards.
Ship with a reputation? CV-6, USS Enterprise. Good (and lucky!) strike at Midway, struggled through at times, twenty battle stars, held the line solo for a while in the Solomons, and helped to pioneer USN CV night ops. Not a bad bag, and a big reason why the name is continued. "Enterprise vs Japan" -- they certainly earned themselves some repute.
This early DryDock is a surprise but a welcome one nonetheless. Fantastic work as always Drach. I think if America, Britain had come together in late 41/early 42 to design a carrier for the future and beyond the war. It would have incorporated design elements from both Navies. Though a carrier designed that early in the war would be subject to numerous changes and revisions in design as the lessons of modern warfare were learned and processed. So you'd be looking at 43 to 44 before any steel was actually layed then who knows if it would ever actually be completed.
For someone like me who has never appreciated the size of a Nimitz class super carrier before, that picture of one next to an Iowa class battleship is insane.
Nimitz is obviously larger but I think that picture exaggerates it somehow. Nimitz class has an overall length of about 1100 ft while the Iowa class has an overall length of almost 900 ft. The picture makes the carrier look almost twice as long. It’s not.
@@dojokonojo It's a matter of perspective, one might say. Keep in mind that a Nimitz-class carrier is also about 28' wider in the beam and the flight deck is about 252' wide.My first sight of a supercarrier up close and personal was checking aboard one in drydock. It looked like a giant erector set with a carrier in it. I imagine one of those ultra-battleships would be just as impressive.
There was that list a while back (I forget the RU-vid channel that researched it) that showed some really odd words that can get your video demonitized, including all the names of US States! Oh and with the Kamtchatka video, I expect Admiral Rozhestvensky forced RU-vid to demonitize that one!
I don't think it would have been as bad as you might think. Over 100 were built for US pre dreadnoughts, and many of them were removed and converted to shore defense guns. Using the removed gins for a class of cruisers wouldn't have presented a problem. In addition, the Army and Marines quite liked this gun for shore batteries, and at least another 70 guns were ordered for this purpose. The guns were used all they way through WWII so ammunition production and supply also wouldn't have been a problem. The 7" gun seems like an oddball today, but it was the heaviest gun the could be hand loaded by very strong men using separate ammunition, so they hung around for a long time.
Nah, i named it for the capital of North Dakota. Don't know who else used the name, wasn't me. The other two ships in the class were Annapolis and Madison.
wrt the question about the USN experimenting with T-E drive before using it in battleships, USS Jupiter had TE drive. Laid down in 1911, she was four years ahead of the T-E powered New Mexico.
@chris younts As far as I know, everything built with a T-E drive carried it through their service life. When Saratoga was torpedoed the second time, the flooding shorted the control system for the T-E drive, leaving her dead in the water. I don't think it would even be possible to convert from T-E to geared turbine because of the way the T-E allowed greater compartmentalization. The conversion would require a lot of bulkhead removal and realignment of turbines and shafts. The USN had not given up on T-E drive after the 20s either. The Buckley class DEs, laid down 42-43, had T-E drive.
@chris younts I don't have a copy of Jane's at my fingertips, so I resorted to using Wiki. According to the Wiki entries, NM was refitted with geared turbines in the early 30s, as you said. Her two sisters were originally equipped with Curtis turbines, which were also replaced in the early 30s with geared turbines. So yes, they were all reengined, as you said, but they were not all initially built with T-E systems. As NM was the only one built with T-E, her engine spaces were probably not optimized for T-E, which facilitated the conversion to the geared turbines. Again, according to Wiki, both of the Tennessees and all three Colorados were built with T-E and none of the articles on those five ships mention replacement of the TE systems among the many modifications made over the years. Maryland was hit forward by a torpedo at Saipan. The Wiki article mentions her return to Pearl was done running astern so as to not put pressure on the bulkhead where the damage was. The Wiki article doesn't mention it, but I have read elsewhere that running that distance at any sort of sensible speed was only possible due to her T-E drive. Reversing turbines usually offer only a small fraction of the power available from the forward running turbines. In the case of T-E drive, reversing the drive is done by simply reversing polarity of current flow, so the full power of the turbines, generators and motors is available in both directions. Interesting conversation. I now have a much more granular understanding of early 20s battleship drive systems than I did this morning.
@chris younts Again referring to Wiki, NM's original T-E drive generated 27,500hp. The conventional turbines in her sisters generated 32,000. The difference probably due to the power loss inherent in converting from mechanical power to electricity, then converting the electricity back to mechanical power, as Drach notes in the video. They could make 21 knots. After their modernization, which increased displacement by 1400 tons, the new boilers and turbines, which took advantage of performance improvements made since the originals had been installed 15 years earlier, generated 40,000hp, and the ships could reach 22kts in spite of the increase in displacement. The cage masts were gone, a new superstructure was built and they looked modern for 1932. The navy putzed around for years about modernizing the Tennessees and Colorados, but, outside of installing some 5/25s and a couple 1.1s didn't do much with them. Imagine if the second London treaty had not had the escalator clause, or the USN had not expected the escalator to be triggered, while designing the North Carolinas, they would be looking at new BBs with only 14" guns, vs the Colorados with 16" guns and might have seen what could be cone with the Colorados. Imagine Colorados being rebuilt in 1938 with superstructures like West Virginia had in 44, with the bulges that had been planned for years but not installed until after WVa was sunk, with AA armament appropriate for the 1938 threat environment (think 4 twin 5/38 mounts and about 10 1.1 mounts) then take a page from the Italian's book, gut out the engine spaces and install the latest high pressure, high temperature boilers and turbines, and use the room freed by removal of the generators and motors to install physically larger boilers and turbines. The Italians increased power in their old BBs from 30,000 to 75,000 and bumped speed from 21 to 26kts. The original T-E system in the Colorados only generated 28,900hp. Unfortunately, my computer received a new version of ,Net a couple months ago and SpringSharp no longer works. Maybe someone with a working SpringSharp can plug in the Colorado specs and see how much power it would take to push them to 27-28kts and see if that sounds feasible. If WVa and Maryland could turn 28kts, they might have been with the carriers, instead of at Pearl, on Dec 7. Even if WVa was at Pearl, flying into the teeth of 4 or 5 1.1" mounts would have made a much more interesting morning for the Kate pilots attacking the ship, and the bulges would have made the Kate pilot's efforts less productive.
@chris younts the ships that were heavily damaged, California, W Va and Tennessee were really brought up to date wrt superstructure and AA. Colorado and Maryland were shortchanged. The Colorados are actually pretty close to the Italians in size. The Andrea Dorias, after they were lengthened in their late 30s rebuilds, were 613' with a 92' beam. The Conte di Cavour class were lengthened to 611' with a 93.8' beam. The Cavours could hit 27kts with 75,000hp. The Colorados were 624' with a 97.5' beam. Wiki gives partial post-rebuild specs on the W Va; 114' beam with the bulges. The South Dakotas were 680' with a 108' beam and could top 27 with 130,000hp. It puzzles the heck out of me why the USN did not extensively modernize the Tennessees and Colorados in the late 30s. Even the Brits made a lot of improvements in the Queen Elizabeths and Renown, but the newest of the BBs at Pearl sailed into WWII with casement guns, cage masts and 20 year old propulsion machinery.
@chris younts Yes, there was an odd situation with funding. The government was building public works projects all over the country under the WPA. I grew up in Kalamazoo, MI, where the County building, Federal building, civic auditorium and a fountain in Bronson Park were all WPA projects. I have read that Yorktown and Enterprise were built with funds sidetracked from an industrial redevelopment program. Odd And our guys paid for the short-shortsightedness with their lives.
Interesting book on the subject of the Med fleet in the early parts of the war is "Their Finest Hour", by Glen St. J Barclay. (1977 Book Club Associates) The book provides some grim looks at the relationship between Churchill and the navy, and the Admiralty's various responses to Cunningham. Amazing the Med fleet survived at all.
British designers to officers: GET IN THE CONNING TOWER Officers: No GET IN! no GET IN THE FUCKING TOWER no FINE! WE'LL TAKE IT AWAY! ok AND USE THE WEIGHT ELSEWHERE! ok AND THEN THEY'LL SHOOT AT YOU AND YOU'LL BE SORRY! ok *conning tower taken away* Officers: *surprised Pikachu*
Various ships have bow torpedo tubes (not exposed but limited to the ship's pointing at, and closing on, the target) or deck-mounted launchers (trainable, but very exposed). Did any ship experiment with a "broadside" or non-bow internal or some sort of armor protected torpedo-launching system?
French fleet for Sealion would be useless, because the germans could get the ships to carry and supply an assault army. They were rounding up _river barges_ and similar crap!
YT will run their own ads. They just won't share the revenue with creators, and they really don't care about the same silly criteria they apply to creators. This is why I use adblock for any demonetized video. I'm not going to give them a dime if I don't have to.
Upon considering videos being demonetized, I've noticed that a lot of people listen to your channel at bedtime while going to sleep. And maybe some of these people after falling asleep accidentally start hitting stuff on their phone & just happen to hit the "report" option & because of this... boom instantly demonetized.
If you include unlimited fuel, I would imagine you could pretty much set them on fire with tracer rounds and wreak havoc on the main decks at will, not to mention shooting away spars, rigging etc. With only a .50 cal machine gun about the only way to truly destroy one would be to start a fire that spread to the powder magazines. That said, a steel, PT sized boat would be damn near impossible to hit with any of the main armament and pretty much immune to any small-arms fire.
Cruisers aren't names for state capitals pre se; they are named after US cities in general. F'rinstance, Baltimore isn't Maryland's capital, Annapolis is. And you're also dead right naming a US cruiser Bismark, after ND's capital would be normal for the US navy, just a bit ironic. In that vein, there was an army officer on one of Vian's destroyers harassing Bismarck named Luytyens, or something similar.
@@sundiver137 Yes, you are correct about U.S.cities names. The Brooklyn class came to mind as I submitted my post. Regardless, I took the remark about how odd a cruiser named the USS Bismark as a bit snarky.
No cruiser has ever been named after the capitol of Connecticut, because for the entire period cruisers were a thing the sloop of war USS Hartford, Admiral Farragut's flagship, was still afloat, before it was shamefully left to rot and sink in harbor in the 1950s. Only in the 90s was a submarine named the Hartford.
I get that modern day isn't your thing and also I'm commenting this a few weeks after you uploaded it but as to when the chinese have ever had a decent navy: today is certainly worth mentioning. Decent enough of a navy that the US is shifting it's strategic focus to the east and japan is remilitarizing.
Drachinifel - If Germany in WWII had not built battleships, instead putting all of the material and manpower into U-Boats, could they have closed the Atlantic?
#Q&A drydock How many landlocked countries (or colonies) have or have had navies, eg. Swaziland, Ethiopia apparently. Eg. Did Bolivia have a navy on lakes? How well documented is the naval battles on like Nyasa (tanganyika) between German East Africa and the British Empire during wwi? ii how much did Churchill and FDR co-operate on the RMS Lusitania contraband coverup in wwi, and then the USS Greer in WWII? Iii how many mascots have been commissioned and then get a statue, eg Just Nuisance in Simon'stown.
I still don't see the certainty that Sea Lion was destined to fail. As discussed, combining the German, French, and Italian fleets (and crewing them, and getting them fuel, and getting then into the right theater) would be difficult, but not impossible with a few other correct decisions, like taking out Gibralter and Malta early. I hear the British historians say that the BEF left all their heavy equipment in France, leaving no armored forces in Britain. One point brought up is the continuation of 2 pounder production because the army needed guns, even relatively ineffective ones, having nothing left in their stockpiles. So this unarmed demoralized lightly armed army is going to easily and obviously defeat a German invasion army in 1940? Nice thought, but it seems rather skewed. Right up there with there being NO axis spies in Britain during the war. Again, nice thought, but patently ridiculous. My contention is that IF the fleets were combined, those motorized concrete filled invasion barges would certainly have not had an easy time of getting across the channel and supplying the troops, but far from impossible. Now that also raises the question of whether the US navy would have come to the rescue in the nick of time, like the old cowboy films. My opinion is that the US (and Canada) would have harbored the British government and military forces until they built up enough to take back Britain.
Were there any early armor-plated ships in the age of sale you know before they had engines on them just you know some thin metal armor or anything like that and the age of sale some basic armor
Possibly one of the greatest oversights any historian who has not served can make is to not bear in mind the psycholgy, training and morale of the individuals involved in a fight and focus purely on machinery involved in any particular conflict; armour, gun calibre, penetration and technology are a minor part of the story. Ignorance of basic cultural philosophies such as the sworn duty of marines to protect their captain, even when conducting land based exercises, inevitably leads to a misrepresentation of the reality of warfare and reflects a fundamental limitation to any analysis an individual may purport to represent. I'd encourage you to expand your perception in future, as much as you are able, and avoid further misrepresentations.
I know you don't like to discuss modern ships, but on the subject of turbo electric drive, what do you thing of the zumwalt class? They have reverted to a form of turbo electric. MT30 and RR4500 gas turbines generating electric power for ships power and propulsion.
Amusing as it is the capitol of the US state of North Dakota is actually named Bismarck, so the fact there has been no USS Bismarck must clearly be a horrible case of discrimination against North Dakotans.
Reference your wallpaper it is obviously a American Yard and it's a pre-Dreadnought era I'm interested in the(white in a monochrome picture)vertical gradients in three sections might you be able to explain them It's driving me crazy
Oh man the arc-flash potential from a turboelectric battleship's drive... fly grid Hell, you'd be reduced to your constituent atoms. Easier to fit scatter shields to turbines than figure out how to stop boilermen evaporating from electrical fault.
A bit of clarification on your take on War THunder vs World of Warships as I don't think you got the whole picture right: While patrol boats theoretically can meet light cruisers, in this case it is the players decision to do so. The battle rating system War Thunder uses for matchmaking separates boats from light cruisers more or less completely. The simple fact is that you are not gonna meet a light cruiser in a boat if you specifically want to advance to destroyers and bigger ships through the tree. It is possible to get into a battle with cruisers with the very top end of patrol boats, but those are not required to advance in the tree and actually rarely played for that particular reason(and a few others, mainly very high research costs). So the claim that you are gonna have to fight a light cruiser with a patrol boat is exaggerated. And while you can meet destroyers with the boats you will usually play, that is a not the case in most matches and destroyers and boats are seggregated on the map via different spawn locations and map topography with much more islands in the boat part of the map which is very hard to navigate for destroyers even if they get to it before being shot down by your ships. The boats you are gonna see in destroyer-heavy battles are in almost every case bots.
I have to say I'm a little confused. I can't believe anyone would thumbs any of these videos?? Maybe one or two could happen by accident but 15? I'd just sit and repeatedly press thumbs up if I could.
In the question regarding Scharnhorst & Gneisenau’s chances if they’d turned to engage HMS Renown, am I correct in assuming that this was before the German ships were refitted with their “Atlantic/clipper” bows?
quick question with the development of new technologies in the last 50 years sould we bring back the old Iowa's with new and updated guns, missiles ,ect could the battleship be the most cost effective weapon system on earth
A ship with 3000 crew isnt sustainable in todays navy. Updating the driveline would require cutting the ship open, very expensive. Aside from theoretical rail guns that might be coming there are no large guns in service that might be useful in the Iowa's turrets, and those would likely not be 16 inchers. Missiles are the way to go for range and accuracy, vertical launchers are the current best option. That would require an enormous rebuild to occomodate, but guided missile cruisers are already more than capable for that. Its too bad really because i'd love to see them back in service.
@@willyjimmy8881 did i say 3000 man crew no i asked with the modern technology's and power coild the battelship the most cost effective war machine that the key with lasers, rail guns(16in 50 calber) and missile could the navy bring them back just a little smaller or the first battlecareier
@@USSAnimeNCC- Pre Commissioned Unit. The ship gets named at Christening. Until she is commissioned as a ship of the Navy, the ship and crew is a PCU. Plus until commissioning, and then "delivery" the owner of the ship is the contracted builder. CVN79 John F. Kennedy recieves her Christening Dec 7 2019.
Errr I dont get the beef with War Thunder. War Thunder has BR's and tier-ing systems. You can only go a full 1 point above your highest ships BR. For example a 2.3 can only fight a 3.3. MOST people CHOOSE to use motor gun/torpedo boats so they can cap quickly. Cruiser and destroyers even have separate spawns as well as MT boats. I have personally chose to use a very fast torpedo boat over a destroyer when I knew I had to cap quickly or they were close to spawn.
On my 5.7 lineup I have 2 PT boats BR's of 3.3 and 3.7. Its not that WT "throws small boats into he mix" its that players choose to have those small boats in their mix.
SO GLAD you are outing the criminal conduct at you tube.I think anyone posting content who has their content deleted etc Should post their interactions with these criminals.
RN officers attitude on naval architechts continuous insistence on stuffing them into place to get killed by concussion, from where they could see nothing, is prime example of RN:s exceptionalism. They were there to command, show example for their crew, and win battles, not hunker down their head in some glorified kettle.
tehy would have. Vanguard was intended to leap frog the Lions and get another battleship in the water as quick as possible. *looks at her actually commissioning date* heh.
@@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan yea in real live but in the questions they hyotised them coming in on scedules without the delay of the 16 inch guns. wich would meant you had the 1st batch at least as fast.(as an uninteruped build Vanguard) If at that point they run out of spare 16 inch i could see a point of her but otherwise not really.
With the lions replacing the r class I wounder if the vanguard would not gave been a hole class as each r and the queens would have had a full battery of 15"
If the Axis got control of the French fleet it would have forced the RN to embrace the Aircraft carrier as the main naval weapon like the US did post Pearl Harbour.
The Chinese have a really good night now probably third best in the world America and the Royal Navy are the top two at least I hope the world may be the least a second greatest Navy if it's not that really breaks my heart
I don't know why RU-vid doesn't think advertisers would be interested in your videos, they suggest 30 videos on my start page everyday, and I'm not interested in even one of them. The reason why is obvious: RU-vid is run by idiots that use robots to run the channel.
RU-vid staff will NOT tell you *WHY* any action is taken....because *they don't know why* - they leave this up to The Algorithm; which has been a black box running without reset or oversight or control on its inputs for long enough now, that even the original designers of it cannot tell you how it makes decisions; it's evolved to a complexity beyond our comprehension. NOTA BENE: This is not saying it's a Super-Intelligent AI that is vastly more intelligent than a human; just that we can't 'decode' it's decision-making process anymore. For the same manner, neurologists cannot look a human brain's ganglions and neurons and say definitively how or why a given brain makes any kind of decision. Both 'neural networks' have become too complex to 'trace' anymore. TBH, my personal estimation of watching the results of The Algorithm is that it's at maybe a kindergartner's level of intelligence and comprehension - it can process just about anything that its given with some previously-defined criteria, and apply some rules it's been previously given, and while it can apply those rules imaginatively and creatively to content that it might not have originally been instructed on how to judge, it doesn't do so perfectly. A fair amount of time things mesh correctly with what we 'intended', but...there's STILL a LOT of errors (see: well, if I have to give you instances, you don't pay attention to RU-vid much at all :D ) The thing that I'm worried about is that of the errors made by The Algorithm, everyone is focusing on the 'innocent mis-pronounced guilty' instances, which are easily identifiable because the people involved very quickly make the situation known...but this then begs the question "how many ineligible and 'unsuitable for advertisers' videos are getting *approved* for monetization?" because I feel the people involved THERE would keep things VERY quiet: advertisers wouldn't want to loudly and publicly complain "RU-vid IS AIRING OUT ADS ON SMUT!" but instead quietly withdraw their ads/lodge private complaints, the video creators either a) never understood that their video was ineligible for monetization so why would they SAY anything, or b) knew full well and maybe said "eff it; if it's too far, they'll tell us" and submitted it anyway, and aren't complaining about getting around the rules.....or c) in Drach's case, never ASKING TO BE MONETIZED, and mysteriously finding his content not just eligible, but *activated*. And probably assuming a lot of a) in that "I guess it's okay?" (when in reality, maybe The Algorithm not just considers his content acceptable for monetization, but *DESERVING* of monetization? {At this note I should add that I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlord? ;) } )
Remember, RU-vid demonitization has nothing to do with suitability for advertisers and everything to do with preventing independent creators making money or providing factually accurate information. If your videos were posted by the History Channel, it would ALWAYS be completely fine with RU-vid. How dare you create factually accurate content independently.
