I remember reading how Yamato during Operation Ten Goh was carrying alot of money, this money was said to be the pay for all of Okinawa's defenders for a couple months, I also read that there are multiple conspiracies about what happened to this money, have you heard about this? if so do you belive any of the conspiracy theories?
Has there ever been a capture of one or more ships under construction or just beginning fitting out where the recipient navy went "generally interesting hull but we will use it with our gear instead. Easier than starting a new ship from scratch", especially in the age of steam and beyond? Plus, where would you see these actions being able to be done in history where it would have been a possibility or a good idea despite the opposite having occurred (example: seized a ship on a slipway just weeks from being finished but blown up instead or left to rust)?
Good day Drach. I just read a question, here, about Operation Ten Go. I've seen other IJN/IJA operation names with the word 'Go' in them. So....could someone provide the translation of that word. (google translates it as 'five', which doesn't make sense) . Arigato.
I was a tank platoon leader back in the day when all MBT's mounted searchlights. IR or White Light, the idea of lighting up like a beacon in front of the enemy did not seem conducive to long life. So, based on our annual gunnery results, I designated our worst shooting crew as the searchlight tank for the platoon. Another incentive to shoot fast and accurately.😂
On the subject of naval chivalry: I’ve read that, after capturing SS _Clement,_ KzS Langsdorff sent a distress signal to Pernambuco giving the location of the survivors in the water, even though this signal was the first indication the British had that _Graf Spee_ was in that region.
Ah, yes, British Leyland. My first car was a Triumph TR-6. I loved it, but the Chilton shop manual got a LOT of use. A friend’s perfectly and frequently maintained TR-4A had a bumper sticker proclaiming “All parts falling from this vehicle are of the finest British manufacture”
In the days of my wasted youth I owned a long string of Brit Leyland vehicles. Just the thing a young stud Ensign through Lieutenant Naval Flight Officer needed. The string included Spitfires, a TR6 and MGs. I must admit that they were great fun to drive, and were certainly effective in attracting the interest of the young ladies....both days of the week they were running. They are best described as having two modes of operation, broken down and about to break down.
Submarine Toilet on SSN-637 class submarine. Stainless Steel toilet bowl bolted to the deck. Waste was piped directly to the sanitary (sewage) tank. This was at submarine internal pressure until emptied. All toilets, which were forward of the reactor compartment, drained to this one tank. Toilets were equipped with a large diameter ball valve with a 2+ foot long handle. To flush you were open the valve manually with the long handle and then open a globe valve for sea water to flush the waste to the sanitary tank. The seawater WAS NOT at full sea pressure. I don't remember it's source but all seawater systems at full sea pressure were minimized as part of the SUBSAFE program. Now, the problem comes when the sanitary tank was full, or nearly so. It was blown over the side with compressed air while at periscope depth. The auxiliaryman of the watch had to make sure he closed the discharge valves, 2 valve protection, before the tank was fully empty and vent compressed air over the side. This made noise and SONAR would tell the Captain about this. Not good for sound discipline. The other problem was NOT opening the ball valve to flush while the sanitary tank was being blown. Failure to heed this resulted in you "picking toilet paper and "stuff" our of your teeth". Yes, I did this once. Rule was you do it you clean it. I spent the next 2 hours scrubbing down the wardroom head from top to bottom.
I’ll never forget the comedic line from neptunes inferno: Captain of Atlanta: COUNTER ILLUMINATE! COUNTER ILLUMINATE!!!! Operator in the gun director: fuck that, OPEN FIRE!
Re: Hansan, Admiral Yi’s historical maneuver at Hansando was to a) send in a small squadron to the Japanese ambush to bait them out into more open waters off Hansan Island (shown in the film), b) set up a double envelopment with the main fleet (this is the Crane Wing Formation, though it was generally a land cavalry envelopment formation) by sailing in line abreast and then having them pivot in place while forming a curved line of battle, c) send in a small group of the turtle ships to slow the Japanese advance while this double envelopment trap was being set up so the Japanese wouldn’t get into boarding distance too quickly, and d) have two squadrons hiding behind the islets on either side of the main battlefield that would deploy and join either end of the main Korean battleline to further outflank and envelop the Japanese force (this part was sadly omitted from the film, and it’s a major issue, as it’s a big part of what made the double envelopment possible). It was indeed difficult to have the rowers synchronize exactly right to allow the fleet to maneuver in place as it did, which is why Yi drilled his sailors to an extreme extent before this battle (and during his entire naval career, actually)-this wasn’t something the pre-Yi Korean Navy could have pulled off. The fact the Korean navy consisted of flat-bottomed ships intended for littoral and coastal operations helped significantly as well. This wasn’t actually one of the battles Yi fought for the sake of stopping a Japanese advance (that happened earlier, during the Battle of Sacheon, and, more famously, later in the war at Myeongnyang). The main point of the Battle of Hansando for both sides was that it was a search-and-destroy operation to find and wipe out the bulk of the enemy fleet. The Japanese had to get rid of the Korean fleet under Yi if they wanted to gain sea control and resupply their land forces by sea; the Koreans had to get rid of the main Japanese fleet under Wakizaka to maintain sea control and prevent the Japanese from sending supply vessels into the Yellow Sea and up various Korean rivers. The big issue I have with the depiction of the Battle of Hansan Island in the movie is that it was way too short: in reality, once Yi had gotten the Japanese into his double envelopment trap, the battle went on for almost six hours as the Korean battleline fired on the cornered Japanese warships, destroying most of the Japanese fleet. The film has the entire Japanese force being wiped out in that one massive salvo, which isn’t really how it went down. Hansando is one of Yi’s better-documented battles due to the fact both Yi and Wakizaka wrote extensive mission reports after the engagement, with the cross-referenced details checking out.
@@ghost307 Hansan: Rising Dragon There is a significant bit of Korean nationalism in a couple of scenes (though it’s not as prominent as one might expect), and while the opening stage of the battle isn’t too bad, I do think the film could have done a better job of showing Yi forming the Crane Wing Formation and bringing up the hidden squadrons to encircle the enemy.
Auxiliary Floating Docks, Big (AFDB), also known as Advance Base Sectional Docks (ABSD), came in sections, 93 ft long and 3,850 tons each. Each section had a 165-ft beam, a 75-ft molded depth, and 10,000 tons of lifting capacity. Sections could be put together to lift larger ships. AFDB were needed to repair battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, and large auxiliary ships. The AFDB-1 Artisan had 10 sections (A to J) for a total lift of 100,000 tons, and was 1,000 ft long with all 10 sections installed. AFDB-1 to 7 were built between 1943 and 1945 and towed to remote navy bases. An AFDB would have a crew of 600 to 1,000 men, a fresh-water distilling plant and was otherwise self-sustaining. They had a rail traveling 15-ton capacity crane with an 85-foot radius and two or more support barges. To pump water from the tanks, there were two 24-in discharge pumps on each section, each pump rated 15,000 gpm. For electricity, there were two 350-kw diesel AC generators on each section, producing 440 volts 3-phase 60-cycle power. AFDBs had steam plants to run the pumps. Each section could store 65,000 gallons of fuel oil to supply the ships under repair. Crew lived in barracks ships, called APL, that docked next to the AFDB.[4][7][2][8] USS Artisan (ABSD-1) (A-J), built by Everett-Pacific and others USS AFDB-2 (A-J), built by Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California (E, F, H & I in use)[9][10] USS AFDB-3 (A-I), saw fighting action in Guam, and was sold to Croatia in 2000.[11][12] USS AFDB-4 (A-G), built by Mare Island Naval Ship Yard (NSY). Attacked by air on April 27, 1945. Partially sunk 1989 as a reef.[13][14] USS AFDB-5 (A-G), built by Chicago Bridge in Morgan City, Louisiana. Scrapped in 1997.[15] USS AFDB-6 (A-G), built by Mare Island NSY. Scrapped 1976.[16] USS Los Alamos (AFDB-7) (A-G), built by Chicago Bridge. Sold to a private shipyard in 1995. Construction took about 2 to 2.5 years.
From what I know about history the Japanese navy ran the "death camps", my grandfather was in one. Definitely the most ruthless service in the most ruthless military ever. Every day guards would pull a few men out away from pushing carts and hand them a piece of coral or rock. Arm straight out to the side shoulder height over the bayonet. You had to hold it until your hand was pierced with sufficient enough blood. If you dropped the rock to soon, or missed the bayonet you'd be beaten. A man who ran essentially ran the camp, nick named slime loved to play a different game. Every few days he'd muster the camp to watch, as he beat a man, often to death. My grandfather was one selected and his beating cost him 2 kidneys.
I don't know, I feel that if someone in the 2nd Pacific Squadron had had a dreadful mishap and 'accidentally' fired a couple broadsides into the Kamchatka early on, causing it to return to port or sink, their overall performance leading up to and at Tsushima would have been greatly improved. :P
Regarding IJN officers/sailors saluting the survivors of _Johnston_ and _Samuel B. Roberts..._ these men'd acted bravely and heroically probably even by _Japanese_ standards. (I mean, come _on_ - three fleet destroyers and four destroyer escorts charging down a force with _dozens_ of fleet destroyers _plus_ eight cruisers _plus_ four capital ships!)
I'm not sure the Japanese knew they were destroyers. I've read they thought they were faccing the 3rd fleet and thought the ships attaking them where cuisiers. Seems hard to believe I know but ships are misidentified all the time and the other guy often looks bigger than he actualy is
@@adamcarriere4465 Not at first, but they _did_ realize the true size of the American ships later on in the battle (that's why they switched to firing HE at them, since they realized that their opponents were small and soft enough to be more vulnerable to that than to AP shells).
Actually, the cruisers knew what they were truly facing early on. The battleships farther away believed they were facing Baltimore class cruisers and Essex class carriers. I don't know if they ever really ever figured out what they were attacking. They weren't really gaining distance on the fleet. They were dodging a large amount of aircraft. With the attack of the destroyers, it added to the confusion. I don't think the battleships ever did change the shells. Roberts was hit by Yamato and the shell went through the ship. Also, only one carrier was lost as well. The HE rounds should have exploded on contact which should destroy a destroyer in one shot and possibly did the same to the carriers. The Roberts took a shell near the center of the ship. The way I understand it came from the 18-inch guns of the Yamato. It is possible that it was a HE shot and there just wasn't enough to Roberts to make the shell explode. If you look at the damage that Johnson and Roberts did, it was amazing. Especially what Johnson did. Going in alone and wrecking havoc. They took out two cruisers with one torpedo attack. Upon causing other damage with guns and getting hit, they went to head back. Here comes the other destroyers so they turned around and fought more. The Roberts shot off pretty much every gun they had. Those two ships had the biggest effect on the Japanese fleet. They also went above and beyond what a destroyer should have been able to do. The captain saluting the crews of these ships and the ships themselves was out of respect. They were probably recognized by their bravery and their courage. The Japanese warrior spirit.
The Japanese didn’t have that many destroyers. They started the Battle off Samar with 4 BBs, 6 CAs, 2 CLs & 11 DDs. They’d already lost Musashi in Sibuyan Sea & two heavy cruisers to Dace & Darter. By the end of the battle the destroyer screen and aerial attacks sank half of the remaining heavy cruisers and crippled or damaged the other three. Oldendorf had 20+ destroyers available to him at San Bernardino but the IJN was bloody near out of ‘em by ‘44.
1:52:50 Yes, but imagine what if Scharnhorst and Gneisenau met HMS Furious, armed with a rear-mounted 18in gun xD I can see the British aggressively (but extremely slowly) loading the 18in gun, shouting "Say you pwayers, battweship!" like the Elmer Fudd from Looney Tunes...
1:56:33 On the topic of toilets as you said for age of sail ships at the stern of a rated naval ship they would have private ones for the captain and possibly officers, you can see them on the outside of the ship. The fancy extensions like two balconies / Bay windows on both side that extend over the Sea are called the quarter gallery and this is where the captains and other higher ranking officers toilets were located. There was normally just one toilet on one side but they have a quarter gallery on both side to make it symmetrical. Also some larger ships of the period at the front of the ship they had roundhouses (you can see them at the front of HMS Victory) more private and out of the elements for the officers. Hopefully I have explained that well enough so people get what I'm on about. But in short the higher ranks in the age of sail got the fanciest Portaloos / Porta-potties known to man.
When I visited the Constitution around 1970, there was a modern seat installed in one of the quarter galleries, with a pipe leading to the pier. Also in the 60s, I built a model kit of a topsail schooner that had what were effectively two outhouses in the aft corners of the main deck, which overhang the sides of the hull.
Re: Toilets, during the period covered by this Channel (and Beyond) Part of the issue is also the ability to NOT Crack nor Shatter when your ship is being hit! Early WW2 several US Navy ships that made it back after being in battle had to use small trash cans (dust bins) since the porcelain toilets and urinals had shattered!!! A US Senator, who was later proven not to know as much as he claimed, was making speeches about government overspending.... Wondered why the US Navy had such stringent MilSpecs for Toilets and Urinals got the above Historical Facts explained to him! Modern Day: Part of the issue, perhaps the Major Part is the "Collection and Holding Tank" (aka the "Cht" tank) which holds all "waste products" until you're far enough out to sea when departing, or tied up to the pier if returning.... These sometimes aren't quite designed and/or installed right. (Or when coming into a port, Crew don't always observe water use guidelines and the damn tank overfills! Much to the displeasure of the lowest and/or nearest berthing compartment!!!
Your point about General at Sea Robert Blake is spot on, and that's without his tactical fighting abilities, but some credit also belongs to Robert Rich Earl of Warwick who commanded the navy during the first English Civil War, wielding into the effective instrument that the likes of Blake, Monk and Dean perfected and bequeathed to the restoration.
It wasn't just the navy that got in on the BSG naming. The F-16 got the nickname Viper specifically after the Colonial Viper fighter from the show. It caught on so well that pretty much no one calls it by its official name of the Fighting Falcon or Falcon. They're almost universally called Vipers by their drivers.
And the 'Electric Jet', as the first fly-by-wire aircraft to enter military service, and the 'Lawn Dart', from its early teething troubles. In a denigrating comparison to its size, F-16 drivers sometimes refer to the F-15 as the 'great prehistoric bird Rodan'.
Don't forget modern warships also have degaussing gear, I don't know how big an electrical threat to someone being keelhualed, but we did tag them out when divers were working over the side.
One observation regarding the Hornblower movie (and other age-of-sail battle scenes) - I have read that in battle the courses (the lowest sails on the foremast and mainmast) were normally furled to avoid the risk of them being set alight. In the original book ("A Ship of the Line") Hornblower's single-handed attack on a French squadron in port was a deliberate sacrifice to prevent the enemy from sailing before British reinforcements could arrive to blockade the port.
00:06:07 Modern carriers are HUGE. I figured out that Triton could possibly picked my Oliver Hazard Perry frigate, turn it sideways, and fit it into the hanger bay of the Abraham Lincoln. Just stray thoughts during an unrep.
I do like Hornblower’s accent better than Bert’s accent in Mary Poppins. Honestly, I never thought Gregory Peck tried to put on an accent. I just enjoyed the movie.
Gfevory Peck belongs to that tiny group of actors whose convition in a role is such that an accent is unecessary. Come that, he didn't have much of a german accent in Boys from Brazil either. To quote the Treasure of the Sierra Madre... "Accents? What accents? We don't need no steenkin' accents."
"How many blackburn blackburns could a blackburn blackburn burn if a blackburn blackburn could burn blackburn blackburns". Wow, that's quite the username. I wasn't prepared for that one to come spilling out.
The Strategic requirement for the fuel hypothesis wasn't taken into account -in effect the British and their US aid supply were unlimited -whereas once closed down Europe had only the Ploesti and Baku fields -so loosing Baku after the invasion of Russia. However even the allies struggled with supply -not even counting the cost of getting aviation fuel to Operation Matterhorn (the US deployment of USAAC B-29 to China) as an air campaign it took 12 B-29s to supply sufficient fuel and supplies for single B-29 unit mission against Japan, and that was only the flight over the hump from Asam in India to Chengtu in China, never mind the cost of getting the stuff to India (ships plying across the South Alantic to South Africa and on to Bombay (Mumbia) then across India by rail, later ports such as Calcutta and Chittagong might have been used but Chittagong was a Sh8thole and Calcutta not much better. So for Germany to supply Regina Marine adequately with synthetic and even Ploesti fuel oil, would mean an almost continuous supply train, screwing up every secondary supply all the way to and from Austrian Border then down the entire length of Italy to Taranto -although small coastal tankers could be used in the Adriatic. Same applies to a lesser extent with Tirpitz -supplying fuel to Trondheim exclusively for the Navy is a huge multiplication factor.
The problem is, not so much having the oil, but getting the oil to where it is needed. That is what happened to the Japanese in WW2. Once the problems with the Mark XIV torpedoes were cured, American submarines started sinking sizeable numbers of tankers, and the Japanese couldn't get the fuel back to the Home Islands. That was why they stationed a large portion of their fleet in the Dutch East Indies, so that they were right next to the oil supply.
@@treyhelms5282 Yes. And I think the loss of the CV Taiho was partly due to her unrefined and more flammable bunker fuel, though the explosion that blew her sides out was mainly due to fumes from a n aviation fuel leak.
@@treyhelms5282 IIRC they switched to running on raw crude after the Allies bombed the refineries in the DEI. The salt present in the raw crude wasn't good for the boilers either, but at that point the life expectancy of a IJN ship in general made that point somewhat moot.
The IJN Fuso was the last capital ship to be sunk by surface ship torpedoes. She was not brought low by a torpedo boat but I think a Fletcher class destroyer counts as the 1944 equivalent.
In January 1942, the USN formed TF 99 on Roosevelt's orders. Based out of Iceland, it was the operational control of CINC Home Fleet. At full strength, it would have had two fast battleships - North Carolina and Washington (9 X 16 inch each), two fleet carriers - Ranger and Wasp (40 F4F fighters and 40 SBD dive bombers each), three heavy cruisers - Astoria, Tuscaloosa and Wichita (9 X 8 inch each), three light cruisers - Brooklyn, Savannah and Philadelphia (15 X 6 inch) and several squadrons Benson class destroyers (5 X 5 inch 10 X torpedo tubes or 4 X 5 inch and 5 torpedo - the later to mount more light AA). I don't think der Panzerschiff would have accompanied High Seas Fleet 2.0 as they were too slow ( despite what Wikipedia claims, they were only good for 26 knots). With the exception of the Emden, the German light cruisers were banished to the Baltic training flotilla as they were too lightly built (proven in several aborted attempts at North Sea cruises pre-war). The German Navy had 15 destroyers surviving by mid-1942, 7 with 5.9 guns which were extremely hard to load manually in any sort of seaway (the Germans reverted to 5 inch in later designs) To quote Fleets of World War II on Nazi DD's in general " Their designers intended their extreme boiler conditions to provide maximum power, mostly they produced aggravation and short range. Likewise the 5.9 inch gun supposedly outclassed all enemy weaponry, but the sluggish thing merely added its great bulk to the ship's wallowing movements"
Whether your dealing with warships or tanks 5” is pretty much the limit for manual loading unless you recruit your gun crews from American football & Olympic power lifting teams.
You had mentioned that the Japanese in some cases were known for machine gunning shipwreck survivors in the water after their ship had sunk. And sailors that were in the water after the USS Johnston and USS Sammy b Roberts was sunk said they had Japanese Ship Captains salute them as their ships passed them in the water. Recently I was watching a documentary about USS Harder which was a Gato class submarine. And the submarine had managed to sink a troop transport ship. And after the ship was sunk, the submarine surfaced & the Skipper had the crew break out small arms. And since there were Japanese soldiers in the water the Skipper ordered his crew to open fire on the survivors. Unfortunately there were also numerous Indian POW's in the water as well that were gunned down along with the Japanese soldiers. Although I can't remember the Captains name, I believe he was even given a medal for this. However, USS Harder would NOT survive the war. On their 6th patrol they were reported lost at sea. I believe that the crew were doomed due to the action of their Skipper.
14:25 "...crewed with people escaped from a Speedy Gonzalez remake..." I never know when you're going to pop up with an off-hand comment that makes it dangerous for me to have a mouthful of food when they arrive... 1:40:20 Depending on whether you're referring to a Greek or Roman trireme, the crewman striking the beat for the rowers was called the 'keleustes' or 'hortator', respectively. Admittedly, just throwing the term out would probably go over the head of many listeners. 1:44:10 The problem of lighting up your target drawing a line back to your own ship persists to the modern era; I like to paraphrase an old aphorism as "He who radiates is lost", referring to the fact that your radar emissions can be detected and tracked at _significantly_ greater distances than you can pick up a return from those emissions.
re: toilets in submarines, the British X-craft midget subs has their toilet in the 'wet and dry' chamber, which could be flooded to enable a diver to exit the sub while submerged. Apparently when 'flooding up' you'd often get 'former friends', as one of the crew put it, floating past your face. Seems lots of them preferred to wait until the sub was surfaced, then go up onto the casing and cling to the induction pipe to shit over the side.
17:00 In such situation, with a decent level of preparation, one may attempt a mass surprise attack. Just put a lot of spies into various enemy ports, locate the position of enemy capital ships, and then gunterprien them once the war is declared. Plus points for setting up the strike to commence on the same time, to deny the enemy the possibility of reinforcing patrol units, and for not telling each captain of each submarine about other such attacks, to avoid the risk of one getting captured and compromising the secrecy of the whole operation.
For a ship class with capability gaps between the first and last ship in a class, I would also throw the Italian Condottieri in the ring. Maybe not quite as significant as some others, but there still quite a difference between a Guissano and an Abruzzi. They even look very different. Relevant only of course, if you consider them subclasses (which I do) instead of five seperate class.
1:40:00. IMO an aircraft carrier is a vessel that is intended to both launch, land, refuel, rearm, and repair the same aircraft multiple times. So... Nimitz carrier - yes Amphibious assault ship - yes Arleigh Burke destroyer - yes All others on the list - no A few more... Hurricane equipped cargo ships - no, the fighter didn't land on the ship and couldn't be rearmed (or even reused) Seaplane tenders and WW2 cruisers and battleships - no, the planes don't land on the ship Battleship Iowa refit (spotting drone) - no, the drone wasn't armed. Finally... Cereal is soup Pop-tarts are sandwiches Pineapple belongs on pizza
Did not Cochrane by the use of fire and explosion ships cause absolute panic at the battle of the Basque roads which I believe was the inspiration for that part of the movie(Hornblower is like Aubrey heavily based on the 10th Earl of Dundonald though neither ever matched the achievements of the man they were based on)and had even another frigate or two let alone a small relatively expendable 64 been sent in the French squadron which had largely run aground could easily have been destroyed
wrt the question about the Axis having adequate fuel supplies. The Vichy government was increasingly accommodating to the Axis. Luftwaffe aircraft were operating out of fields in Vichy held Syria. The Germans and Italians supported a coup in Iraq that put an Axis friendly regime in power. Oil was being produced at that time in Iraq. A 12" pipeline was operating, which ran between Kirkuk and Haifa. After the formation of Israel, part of that pipeline was repurposed for a new line to Baniyas, Syria. A rail line had been built by the Ottoman Empire from northern Iraq to the Med, but, after WWI, part of that rail line ventured into Turkey, which was neutral in WWII. In April 41, the Axis could have landed on friendly beaches in Syria, driven into friendly held oil fields in Iraq, and begun construction of rail and pipeline connections to bring the oil to friendly ports in the Med. The British invaded Iraq to reinstall a friendly regime in May 41, then invaded Vichy Syria in June 41, closing the window of opportunity the Axis had to secure a major oilfield. Can't help but wonder why Hitler decided invading Russia in June 41 was a better idea.
Indeed, 100 times this. It seems each of the major openings of a new front by Hitler was done with the expectation of a quick victory that would then provide new resources and free up the armed forces for other tasks. And instead each one just bogged them down deeper into the quagmire. I think the problem with the Syria-Iraq plan is that without first knocking out the Brits in North Africa, Britain rules the Mediterranean and could thus prevent getting any oil out of Syria. The answer to that of course is to go all in on the NA campaign and finish it before launching Barbarossa. I guess we can all thank Hitler for being such a strategic numbnut.
While I am a former NFO, I had the brief opportunity to crossdeck and spend some time aboard a couple submarines. Aviation types are frequently accused of being so superstitious that we border on being occultists. Guilty as charged. That being said, I am not sure who came up with the idea that sub sailors are not superstitious. They made my strange peculiarities of custom look positively scientific.
Officers of the Sword vs Officers of the Pen. See the USN Line Officers vs the Bureau (Mark 14 Torpedo anyone?) The various technical bureaus reported directly to the Secretary of the Navy NOT to the Commander in Chief of the US Navy (CINCUS). The unfortunate pronunciation of this abbreviation as "Sink Us" led to its rapid replacement after Pearl Harbor by Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Note that his authority was still limited to operational matters, with the bureaus remaining independent. It wasn't until the National Defense Act of 1947, that the bureaus were forced, kicking and screaming, to join the "Real Navy". And yes, I KNOW it should be bureaux, but the s is how it is done in the US
My favorite literary examples of gunfights between a submarine and a surface ship are (1) the climax of the battle in "The Enemy Below" (I mean the book with a British destroyer, not the movie which I also love), and (2) the final battle in "Dust on the Sea" (Beach's first sequel to "Run Silent, Run Deep") where an improved Balao submarine (with 2 5/38s and lots of 40mms, 20mms and M2s), out of torpedoes, surfaces and attacks and kills a Japanese frigate (to expose a troop convoy to attack from another sub).
@@grahamstrouse1165 Given the difficulties with getting the quads to work on the KG5s and the French boats I can only imagine how many missed salvos the sextuples would suffer.
1h05m56: as a comment on the Aegis ships all looking the same. I would like to note that, much like the quality and types of armor that were available at the time of the ship in the segment, there are major external factors on Aegis specifically and more generally, all modern ships. first, the Aegis arrays need a certain shape superstructure to mount them on to give them their required field of view. The Burks have them on one octagonal shaped structure, and the Ticonderogas and the older Long Beach and Enterprise use squares. But for the foreign ships, the western ships at least are all using purchased Aegis systems so they are not going to disregard the USN ships that were designed for them. And it happens to be a logical answer on how to mount ‘billboard’ type radar arrays, so it’s showing up on non-Aegis designs too. second, the varying degrees of stealth incorporated into the modern designs have both massively cleaned up and simplified the superstructures of modern warships. the end result is that most modern ships look much like a Burke class if they have aegis, or much like other similar sized ships if they don’t with a low superstructure with little to no clutter or other exposed systems and sensors. And, much like with stealth aircraft, the needs imposed by stealth greatly reduces the number of ‘right’ answers for a given design.
Did the Japanese have anything like the American PT boats or the German PT boats? It seems like they would have been a threat in the narrow channels and around the islands of the South Pacific if they had Long Lance torpedos.
My initial reaction is to expect that any such boat would use the 17.7" aircraft torpedoes instead of the 21" or 24" torpedoes used by submarines and surface ships.
You are looking for the Type T-14, Type T-51, and related Motor Torpedo Boats of the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were armed with small torpedos, about 18''(457mm), and some small cannons. Overall, Japan had a couple hundred or so of these little boats in service, but they never quite went as far and wide as the US Navy would deploy PT-Boats, so they don't get the great press attention they might have.
What made the ram-bow over a retractable spar torpedo? I would think having a spar torpedo that could be extended/lowered just before ramming would be safer than a bow always set to rip open a hull even by accident.
I recall seeing a photograph of the Lydia and her opponent building in a yard in a 1950s National Geographic. These were models in the sense that they were subscale. But they were also actual vessels. Definitely look bigger than the typical model ships in movies. They sure looked better than the ones that were used ln Harm's Way. I wonder if they still exist? Most likely not.
43:30 Given how little the RN accomplished in the Indian and Pacific during 1941-42, would it have been _that_ bad if they’d been forced to deploy these vessels to the Med as a counter to the Italians?
If your giving the book away I’ve two suggestions 1) make it a Christmas giveaway Or 2) a Christmas give away for patrons only As a non patron I favor 1 but 2 makes more sense form your position
Last comment - Armed trawlers were warships Military Class Trawler 830 tons 13 knots 1X4 inch 4-8X20mm Flower Class Corvette 925 tons 16 knots 1X4 inch 1X2 pounder 2-6X20mm 1XHedgehog
Admirals and generals: One of the more curious bits of trivia from the USN leading up to WW2 was that of the big 3 in the Pacific (Nimitz, Halsey, and Spruance) only Halsey had spent time at the Army War College as well as the Naval War College. Isn't the USS Enterprise longer than the Nimitz?
With regard to HMS Incomparable's length...the BB-65 Scheme 8 design (ie the 33-knot Montana) was 50 feet longer still. And would very much fit into that "completely crazy" category, what with its *six shaft propulsion* with its machinery generating a whopping 320,000 horsepower. If built, that would've been the highest power output of any ship until USS Gerald R. Ford in *2017.*
1:41:28 I just have to think about WG's "aircraft carrier" in the operation "Defense of Navel Station Newport" If the team does well, you have to escort the allied "aircraft carrier" into the base, currently that ship is a Des Moines, which hey, it has a hanger and can launch aircraft so.... If the team does poorly you have to sink a "larger enemy [aircraft] carrier" that is currently represented by Yamato, which, like Des Moines, has a hanger and can launch aircraft
Interesting you suggested in the last Q that a floating drydock was easier... if designs was perhaps modular..to expand length.. versus a dry dock but surely digging a big hole and lining it with rebar and s=concrete..is easier than bespoke building modules for floating drydock and upgrading powerplant etc etc given the space is available..or have most of the historical dry dock already been expanded to their full potential,if so where would u site a shipayard/drydock to build a world beating supersized Warship UK or global preferably both
42:00 I find the actual bridge on the hull of Tirpitz amusing. Assuming an bridge for helping moving the ship to the fitting out station. Real bridges are rare on battleships.
Re effects of Torpedo Boats v Pre-dreadnoughts; not quite what you are asking but similar effects; the loss of Aboukir, Cressy & Hogue in WWI. Armoured Cruisers Torpedoed by 1 U-boat in short order. This led to one unfortunate seaman having 3 ships sunk under him in a morning.
I was listening to SUB BRIEF and he said ship screws need to have a prime number of blades. But I`m sure I`ve seen pics of four blade propellers on ships. Did I misunderstand what SUB BRIEF said? Why would the number of blades need to be a prime number?
About Trafalgar?. You have mentioned that Nelson chaced the French across the Atlantic! So the question has got to be hiw close did Nelson get to the French fleet? And could he have beaten it?
I don't know how close they came physically. But, metaphorically, Villeneuve for away by a whisker. He believed Nelson was in the Mediterranean until Nelson was a few days out when he happened to capture a merchant vessel whose crew knew where Nelson was. He then left the day before Nelson arrived at the island. Nelson has a second opportunity to intercept. Villeneuve, but he cut him off from the wrong port. Villeneuve would be caught on the Battle of Cape Finisterre, by a separate British fleet. As to could Nelson have won? Absolutely. Would they have won? Maybe. Probably depends on the circumstances. Nelson was outnumbered but by a smaller ratio to Trafalgar, but they still had their other advantages. The big difference is it wouldn't have been nearly the decisive victory as Trafalgar had been. The implications may have been different, though. Villeneuve's entire fleet had fewer Ships of the Line than were lost at Trafalgar.
The pure sub-fleet idea would not work because history has shown us that "every" measure is met quickly by a counter measure and the advantage of any approach is rarely ever longer than a year at most. As soon as you are seen by the enemy, they will go out of their way to eliminate you. We will see this nowadays as counter-drone operations start to mature just as counter-sub measures took off throughout WWII.
Another problem with sub spam is its predictable, the opposing navy can spam destroyer escorts and can spread them out not caring about a traditional fleet engagement.
Isn't part of searchlight doctrine also going back to the early 20th century where it would be an integral part of harbor defense or defense against an attack by small torpedo boats where your normally undirected light anti-torpedo guns would need all the targeting help they could get?
1:50:19 I'm trying to figure out what ship you're talking about, is that the Hosh? Hoesh? I can't seem to find it with any derivatives of what I think you said, can anyone here help me with that one?
Navel Aviator here. Eject from your plane into a fire fight, there is a good possibility that you are going to be the senior officer on the ground. so command devolves to you. Scary thought.
2:09 good question. The way you explained it Drach. A mass air strike would have been sentbin to finish her off. And if that didn't work. The big guns of the Royal Navy will
Hey Drach, I know your more navel than Aircraft historian, but have you seen the released documents of the 1950s - 1970s US airship carrier proposals? I think as an engineer you'd find them interesting. In short they had design proposals for a 1000foot nuclear powered flying aircraft carrier and an even larger double envelope with a central hanger between the two hulls.
On the sub spam, I don't think it could ever work on a few levels. That's the short answer. A longer answer I'm still chewing on. Part of what a surface fleet, surface vessel does it that it says you're there. It says you're in charge and its says you intent to make stuff blow up. From a carrier which is massive blunt force trauma, extreme sharp force trauma and every step in between in potentia as a message through to a single corvette. It might be the only one you see, but if that's the littorals? You should get twitchy. Yes, surprise works and having an entire squadrons of boats lobbing missiles over the horizon? Wouldn't want to be that guy. How do they get their intelligence? How do they get their targeting? Well, one of those boats is going to need to be on the surface, near the surface and being a EW boat. It's painting the things that need to be hit, it's passing the information on. It's not just emitting sound, it's emitting radiation and radiation can be traced. When, not if it's attacked it's defences are depth and the ocean conditions. Those are so variable you could have a very good time of it or a very bad time of it. A surface vessel can defend itself from attack. Passively and actively. CIWS, RAM blocks, using your helo's for their RADAR, decoys, jammers, the coast line itself. Submarine is a hyper stealth build and it's dropped all of its defence into not being seen. Subs need a useful depth of water to really work and even then, you can still spot them from just overhead. Thermal, magnetics/MAD, more. Just because you drop below a thermal layer doesn't mean you're invisible. Ships can carry more people, for raiding, shore operations. They can carry vehicles for shore raiding. I've not seen an amphib landing from a sub with a few tanks in support from the same ship, carrier vehicle. Part of this is mission profile, what you're needing to do when you're there. There's also a part of it that's there's things you can only do the surface. Sure, there's a lot you can do with drones, satellite recon and more. You still have to get the information out to the striking element. When that changes, you are going to make the sub vulnerable in a way that no surface ship, no surface group could be. Submarines are a tool and it's a tool that needs to be right for the job. If it's a screw driver, it's a flat head. I'm not going to choose them when I need a Phillips head. Well, bad comparison and there's some exceptions to that. I'm not going to choose them first, unless I had some really, really, really good reasons to.
I once opened that the Soviets would have been a lot better off and more dangerous with the equivalent crew or displacement in attack subs than with the four Kirov class. A US Navy surface warfare officer in the discussion agreed that the subs would be a lot more difficult for him to deal with.
@@kemarisiteYes, no, maybe, I need some context there and there's plenty of ways to read that statement. Shorter answer? Depends who has surprise and who has the intel. Subs under the surface make the entire grid square dangerous, many a grid square dangerous. If you don't know where they are, but you know where they could be? See my comment about that corvette in the littorals. Four Kirov's that you can see from space? Well, you can kinda see subs from space too, but four you can more visually identify, confirm and track? It's a weakness. It's a trade off. I'm not saying the Kirov's aren't a threat or should be dismissed as a threat in their own right. Rather as a part of a combined force, mixed formation of submarines, surface ships and surface capabilities? When you're the defending party does it matter if they're launched by an Oscar II or a Kirov? I'd wager not so much. Detecting the inbound threat with sufficient time and distance? More important in my mind. For one thing, I'm a civvie and I'm a game dev with some reading in the field. I've not done it professionally, I've not even spoken to people who do. At best my 'real life' stories are second hand. I think this stuff is far more a matter of co-ordination, communication and trusting the guys in the field to do their job. From the common sailor, petty officer through to the task group commander. If any of the stuff I've learned from Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, the follow up book are anything to go by? Sure if it's just four Kirov's. Four Kirovs, their supports and a wider, effective kill chain? Now that's a different matter. Win the information war to win the naval war. Well, I did say this was the shorter answer. I could go on for a while for a much longer answer.
Well if you were keelhauled from bow to stern on any kind of modern ship there is a really good chance that you would be turned into hamburger meat by the screws not to mention the rope being used could get tangled around the screw shafts and cause some major damage. Because the rope could cause the shafts to lock up but the turbines still be trying to turn them & then all kinds of stuff could break loose or start grinding gears. And the ship could end up dead in the water until the rope is removed. SO, maybe just better to flog the poor bastard or some other punishment. Like maybe put him in the brig when not on duty, so his "free time" aboard the ship is taken away.
US Gatos with Hooven-Owens-Rentschler engines were a total disaster. So much so that HOR was not pronounced as Aitch-Oh- Arrr but as a name for a certain type of woman. "In the 1930s H.O.R. developed a double-acting two-stroke diesel engine, initially based on the German cruiser Leipzig's MAN engines but with eight cylinders instead of seven, expanded to nine cylinders in the final submarine version. The double-acting design produced more power from a physically smaller engine than conventional designs. However, H.O.R.'s double-acting engines, particularly those of USS Pompano, gained notoriety for their unreliability in the submarine force, where they were nicknamed "whores". Owing to the limited space available within the submarines, either opposed-piston or, in this case, double-acting engines were favored for being more compact. An inherent problem with double-acting cylinders, owing to the piston rod reducing the piston area on one side, is an imbalance in the force on each side of the piston. The H.O.R. engines were plagued by vibration and other problems as a result. This in turn overstressed the drive train and caused the gears (which themselves had been incorrectly manufactured) to shed teeth, create torsional vibration, and frequently rendered the engine and gear train inoperable. As an example of the problems caused by the unreliability of the H.O.R. engines, Captain Charles Herbert Andrews of USS Gurnard recalled concerning a war patrol in support of Operation Torch, "I only used three, saving the fourth for a spare. When two of them broke down in the Bay of Biscay, I cut the patrol short and limped back to Scotland." During World War II, all submarine H.O.R. engines were replaced by early 1943, usually with General Motors Cleveland Diesel Engine Division 16-278A, or 16-248 V16 engines or Fairbanks-Morse Model 38 engines. The wartime performance of the H.O.R. engines was so poor that Captain Tommy Dykers of USS Jack said, "The H.O.R. engines saved the Japanese thirty or forty ships." So, in addition to bad fish, some US boats had bad engines.
Is Rujyo is that bad? It just seems like a product of the loophole of the treaty, and had it not been closed, having a ton of them might have given them some, if inefficient utility. It would have cost more oil, which Japan could ill afford, granted, but if you're out of carrier allocation in the treaty... she gets you more
IIRC, Hornblower's HMS Sutherland was as prize captured from the Dutch - which means she would have bee4n small for a Third rate and of shallow draft. She might have been a 64 instead of a 74....
