USS Alaska - Guide 105 (Extended)

Подписаться 504 тыс.

Просмотров 601 тыс.

50% 1

The Alaska class, insert designation here of the United States Navy, are today's subject.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Next on the list:
-Derfflinger class
-Tre Kronor class
-Nelson class
-Gato class
-Admiralen class
-H class (NB)
-Greek 'Monarch' class destroyers
-'Habbakuk' project
-USS Olympia
-HIJMS Mikasa
-County class
-KMS Tirpitz
-Montana class
-Florida class
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
-HMS Vanguard
-Mogami class
-Almirante Grau
-Surcouf
-Von der Tann
-Massena
-HMCS Magnificent
-HMCS Bonaventure
-HMCS Ontario
-HMCS Quebec
-Lion class BC
-USS Wasp
-HMS Blake
-HMS Romala/Ramola
-SMS Emden
-Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen
-Destroyer Velos
-U.S.S. John R. Craig
-C class
-HMS Caroline
-HMS Hermes
-Iron Duke
-Kronprinz Erzerzorg Rudolph.
-HMS Eagle
-Ise class
-18 inch monitor
-Mogami
-De Zeven Provinciën
-Fletcher class
-USS Langley
-Kongo class
-Grom class
-St Louis class
-H class special
-All-big-gun designs
-USS Oregon
-Gascogne
-Alsace
-Lyon and Normandie classes
-Leander class
-HMS Ajax
-Project 1047
-O class
-R class
-Battle class
-Daring class
-USS Indianapolis
-Atago/Takao
-Midway class
-Graf Zeppelin
-Bathurst class
-RHS Queen Olga
-HMS Belfast
-Aurora
-Imperator Nikolai I
-USS Helena
-USS Tennesse
-HMNZS New Zealand
-HMS Queen Mary
-USS Marblehead
-New York class
-L-20e
-Abdiel class
-Panserskib (Armoured ship) Rolf Krake
-HMS Victoria
-USS Galena (1862)
-HMS Charybdis
-Eidsvold class
-IJN “Special” DD's
-SMS Emden
-Ships of Battle of Campeche
-HMS Tiger
-USS England (DE-635)
-Tashkent
-1934A Class
-HMS Plym (K271)
-Siegfried class
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)
-Treaty Battleship comparison
-Warrior to Pre-dreadnought
-British BC Ammo Handling
-Naval AA Special
-Drydocks
Music - / ncmepicmusic

Опубликовано:

18 янв 2019

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1,3 тыс.

@JohnHill-qo3hb 5 лет назад

"In an effort to give every member of the crew the opportunity to exercise their second amendment", just about soiled myself I laughed so hard.

@legessi 4 года назад

Planes spotted! ~Second Amendment intensifies~

@carebear8762 4 года назад

A beautiful turn of phrase.

@timwerner7771 4 года назад

Soooo Funny,...Only Drac with his crisp received-English accent could deliver that line!

@84MadHatter 4 года назад

hell yeah Merica !!!

@napiersliberty 4 года назад

Well that is ultimately the reason we aren't British subjects any longer.

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

As to AA, I imagined a dude runs out on deck, finds all the AA guns manned, so he dual weilds 2 Thompson sub machine guns instead.

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

@@b19rando Ever see the old film of the dude hip firing a belt fed Browning? I think it was on one of the island campaigns of WW2.

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

@keith moore The jar head. He was sending it. And there is a legit story of a tailgunner on an avenger(I think) using a 1911 in air to air combat. Successfully

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

@keith moore tacairnet.com/2014/11/17/a-zero-and-a-45/. Got some details wrong, bit still.

@Soultaker7 5 лет назад

@@CSSVirginia You mean John Basilone at Guadalcanal?

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

@@b19rando the real film isn't that far off!

@waynedeal473 3 года назад

My dad served on the Alaska during WWII, on the gun crew of first 40 mm quad after 12" turret number two. I just finished a 1/196 RC scale model of Alaska. She was a beautiful ship.

@ComradGay Год назад

In my opinion she’s like a mini Iowa in how based she is

@theguyinmaine 6 месяцев назад

My dad was on the Alaska also. He was a Marine. Was your dad Navy or Marine? Where do I find information on who was on it and what they did? Thanks

@kennethdeanmiller7324 12 дней назад

I'm only guessing but National Archives maybe. Or try to get in contact with Navy Records during WW2. Ànd/ or if your Dad was a Marine then USMC Records.

@StabbySabby 3 года назад

"if it looks like a battlecruiser, smells like a battlecruiser and tastes like a battlecruiser, it's a battlecruiser" - The Mighty Jingles

@nealpritchett2462 2 года назад

Depends upon how you use the term. Technically, a battle cruiser, as initially conceived by Jackie Fischer, was a ship with battleship armament with cruiser speed and armor. I think of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, which had 11 inch guns. The classification of the guns is tricky. A 12 inch gun would have been considered a battleship gun a generation or two previous, but by this time, a new battleship had fifteen or sixteen guns, with even the older units have fourteen inch guns. I think large cruiser - but that's me.

@neniAAinen 2 года назад

Buuuut it doesn't look, smell, or taste like a battlecruiser. It smells like a cruiser, grown up right to the very limits of what the US military industry could mass-produce. And it is exactly what Alaska is.

@the_undead 2 года назад

Under normal circumstances I would never take something like "the mighty jingles" at all seriously but seeing as I know who jingles is via other sources I have to take your comment seriously even though I really don't want to

@StabbySabby 2 года назад

@@nealpritchett2462 so what the hell is the Gneisenau, then? it had 11 inch guns! surely it can't be a battleship or a battlecruiser then

@StabbySabby 2 года назад

@@nealpritchett2462 the Alaska definitely had the speed of a battlecruiser, it had armament suitable for the purpose of a battlecruiser with 12 inch guns and it did taste like a battlecruiser

@snakes3425 4 года назад

Designer: So how many guns do you want US: Yes

@brianjohnson7164 4 года назад

Rest of USN: So how many DP Guns do you want exactly? Atlanta Class: Yes.

@alexandreogrande2100 4 года назад

More dakka!!!

@kebabsvein1 5 лет назад

«Is there an empty space on the ship? Why is there an empty space on the ship, put a gun there you idiot!» still your greatest comment! The one with allowing americans to practise their second ammendment rights has to be the runner up!

@carriertaiyo2694 5 лет назад

I agree with this statement :D

@Joe-xq3zu 5 лет назад

America was feeling a bit Orky at the time. DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA DAKA

@taggartlawfirm 5 лет назад

Freddy Aamodt “exercise its 2nd Amendment rights” ... 😆😆😆 it’s funny because it’s true!

@emintey 5 лет назад

Facing kamikazes it only makes sense.

@mikecavallaro466 5 лет назад

If Alaska isn't a battle cruiser because of 12" guns, how would you define Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11" guns?

@General_Cheese6 3 года назад

I first saw the USS Alaska in a magazine a few years before this came out, I was actually confused on why these Iowa lookalikes were being called cruisers because to me they looked like The Iowa with a super heavy cruiser hull. When I did some research, I realized they were actually America's last Battlecruisers (Large Cruisers whatever your preference is :) ) and they really intrigued me. Then this video came out, I really enjoyed learning more about these fascinating warships, thank you!

@SeraphoftheRoundTable 2 года назад

Good to know I am not the only one who thought they looked like "mini-Iowas."

@aalhard 2 года назад

@@SeraphoftheRoundTable miniowa

@grathian 2 года назад

The Germans never built "Battlecruisers". Ever. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Battleships, and the WWI vessels were classified as Large Cruisers. Same as the Alaskas.

@japekto2138 5 лет назад

There were USN ships classified as destroyer leaders at one time. The USS Alaska could be considered a cruiser leader.

@STONEYCLAW Месяц назад

I was on the USS Belknap, DLG 26. I was a member of the crew of the USS Belknap, DLG 26.

@berges104 5 лет назад

Had a good laugh with ARTIFICIAL REEFS and SANITIZED THE SEA jokes.

@randomuser5443 5 лет назад

And a few new artillery training targets for the Americans to enjoy the Fourth of July

@kamchatka_survivor1959 5 лет назад

The “Two Ocean” strategy evolved into the “Win, Hold, Win” strategy.

@donaldhill3823 5 лет назад

"Most of the Japanese Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs" " Curtsy of the attentions of US Aviators and Submarines" rotflmao

@jeffoverocker4867 4 года назад

again....your sarcasm causes me to laugh until i pee my pants

@joerohr5743 4 года назад

Donald Hill dddB

@micfail2 4 года назад

I was literally just scrolling down to make that same comment 😂 Let's not overlook his comment about the US Navy's tradition of allowing nearly every member of the crew to exercise their second amendment rights in the face of the enemy...Drake's humor is truly epic 😆

@j3dwin 4 года назад

I actually had to think about that for a few seconds before it hit me.

@stevengrotte2987 3 года назад

@@micfail2 It is very enjoyable. An American.

@Tuning3434 5 лет назад

Aha, the Alaska class _-cannot-have-the-Axis-outgun-us_ cruiser?

@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it. 4 года назад

That was definitely the idea ; an ace-in-the-hole that could chase down and destroy any raiders/gunships except for battleships . The enemy battlewagons would be a focus of Allied battle-groups , carrier-groups , and submarine-forces . This strategy paid off for the Allies very well , and in all theatres of conflict . Addendum : The video delves into the subject of enlarged-cruiser versus battlecruiser . Convention aside , a battle-cruiser is normally a shrunken-down battleship with battleship-class guns. An Enlarged-Cruiser , though , is normally a heavy-cruiser , writ large . These ships are designed to be as fast or faster than heavy-cruisers , and bear heavier weaponry than them , as well . They are often longer , but leaner , than many actual battleships . This stands in opposition to battle-cruisers , which tend to be heavier by length than E.Cruisers , and have heavier armament . The exceptional example of this is the WW2 Scharnhorst-class . They were clearly reduced battle-ships , yet had lesser guns than even the Alaska-class . This was not by design ; these were originally designed to bear 15" main-guns . Material limitations prevented that from happening , so 11" guns were mounted instead . Later it was decided that the higher rate-of-fire guns were better for the ships' roles as "great-raiders" , so the Kriegsmarine stuck with them for good . Examples of German Enlarged-Heavy-Cruisers would be the Prinz Eugen-class , Deutschland-class were more armored heavy-cruiser . *Well , there it is . Kirov-class is the only one standing , thanks to missiles . D.H.

@michaeleasterwood6558 4 года назад

These two ships were stunning.Powerful and beautiful all at once.

@nicholas209 5 лет назад

"An even more overgunned version of the Atlanta". How do you do that? Replace the hull with guns?

@HaqqAttak 4 года назад

Maybe they were going to design a 6 inch version of the dual purpose battery.

@hackerjohnt 4 года назад

Nicholas you mean USS Worcester?

@gottjager760 4 года назад

Were approaching levels of AA that shouldn't even be possible.

@frederickmiles327 4 года назад

@@hackerjohnt USS Worchester could be viewed a development of the layout of the Atlanta class light cruisers. The final variant of the Atlanta class the USS Juneau (2) commissioned in 1946 and modernised in 1950-1 with a comprehensive new fire control and radar and the main armament of 12 5/38 supplemented with 14 of the new 3/50. This rebuilt Juneau proved ironically significantly superior in AA performance to the Worchester probably because the Worcester and Roanoke were only completed as prototypes for the 8 inch Des Moines and the 6 inch twin automatic guns in the Worchester used too many parts from Cleveland's turrets in particular they retained bag charges hardly compatible with fast AA automatic fire and jammed repeatedly.

@weldonwin 4 года назад

@Jonathan Stiles American Sailors: *WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!*

@brianw612 5 лет назад

A vessel barely broken in, destined for scrap. Sign of the times I suppose.

@AlteryxGaming 5 лет назад

If you're not sure what to call the Alaska class, you can always call them "Large Cruisers" with an emphasis on the quotation marks since thats what the USN called them.

@bigblue6917 5 лет назад

If you are Japanese I think you call them something to be avoided.

@kingmobius9379 5 лет назад

I see your logic on that and I raise you this the United States government for many years has classified minivans and SUVs as light truck's because of wait for it Hauling capacity yeah and the car companies well they just get by with a legal loophole on mpg and emissions

@Betrix5060 5 лет назад

It's a fucking battlecruiser. I don't give a shit what our navy says.

@gottjager760 5 лет назад

How about 2nd rate. It has armour protection proportional to it's guns, speed to for a battle line and guns to eliminate other ships of similar displacement and type.

@Theduckwebcomics 5 лет назад

They originally called them battlecruisers and it's believed the reason why they lobbied so hard for everyone to stop calling them that after the redesignation was simply to fool the Japanese as to their purpose.

@MothMizzle 4 года назад

6:42 - a gun behind every fleck of paint

@mqbitsko25 5 лет назад

"Baltimore class could be in two places at once." LOL! I see what you did there.

@aleky98 4 года назад

I kinda missed the joke, can anyone explain? What, was the ship split in half by enemy fire or what?

@tim9241 4 года назад

Aleš Doležal it’s because you could afford almost 2 Balti’s for the price of 1 Alaska, thus the two places at once jab.

@IIISentorIII 4 года назад

You guys are total morons....and you don't even know it....

@tim9241 4 года назад

IIISentorIII care to enlighten us you self-righteous little man?

@nafariousjaguar5940 4 года назад

Iirc the bow of a Baltimore class was blown off so that might be what he meant

@agwhitaker 4 года назад

Have always wondered how a one on one engagement between an Alaska class real-big cruiser and a German Scharnhorst class battle-cruiser would have gone. The Alaska had better guns and radar - the Scharnhorst having better armor and torpedo protection (on paper).

@pilotfg4612 2 года назад

Considering the thinner deck armor of the Scharnhorst Alaska could stay just out of range of Scharnhorst guns and do some damage to her deck armor and if Alaska managed to destroy all of Scharnhorst’ turrets which would be surprisingly easy since scharnhorst top turret armor was only 7 inches thick. Alaska could win.

@Warmaker01 2 года назад

This would be hilariously in favor of the USN Alaska-class. The Germans like to sortie ships almost by themselves, even Bismarck was sent to her doom with next to no escort. Meanwhile the American Navy rolled around in large gangs. Even more comedic, since we're now talking WWII-era with the Allies vs Axis, in all likeliness, a supposed Alaska-class in the Atlantic serving against the Germans would not only be rolling around with other American ships, but the Royal Navy would be there also. These waters are, Royal Navy stomping grounds. It would have been a hilarious gangbang of USN / RN ships against 1 Scharnhorst-class. Hell, the crazy Kriegsmarine actually sent out Scharnhorst to go attack a British convoy bound for Murmansk with supplies, but instead ran into Duke of York and many of her friends. Scharnhorst was slaughtered, the Germans were too fond of sending big expensive ships with little to no escort.

@agwhitaker 2 года назад

@@Warmaker01 Well, I did mention a one on one engagement between the 2 ships..... Granted, an actual scenario would have involved mobs of Allied units, and possibly an argument amongst them as to who got to torpedo the hulk. Have always considered Kriegsmarine destroyers to be ridiculously useless. Looked good on paper, pathetic in action. Heavy armament but leisure rate of fire and little reserve ammunition. High speed and limited fuel let them race out of harbor so they turn about and race back in. - but I digress.

@SeraphoftheRoundTable 2 года назад

@@agwhitaker If Scharnhorst actually was equipped with the x6 15in SK C/34 mounts she was orginally supposed to have. Scharnhorst would gain a considerable edge over an Alaska. However, one could argue the 11 inch guns were adequate enough.

@josephdedrick9337 2 года назад

@@Warmaker01 it definitely wasnt completely the germans fault, they didnt have the escorts to send with normally. Its not like the interwar period gave them much time to build up a reasonable sized fleet like they had in ww1.

@willrogers3793 5 лет назад

This video gave me the first 2nd amendment joke I actually laughed at in a very long time, thank you for that. XD

@JLBeaugh 5 лет назад

Grandfather was on the USS Guam (Alaska class), in the Gunnery Department.

@mwnciboo 5 лет назад

Judging by the armament, I think the entire Ships Company were in the Gunnery Department.

@Zephyrmec 5 лет назад

I have an official USN print, the same type the Navy uses as standard wall hangers at Navy buildings of CB-2 hanging in my office. I also had the USS Caloosahatchee and the USS Ainsworth. I sent the Ainsworth to their ships reunion to be used as a door prize, gift, or whatever, I don’t remember what I did with the Caloosahatchee. I bought them in a thrift shop for $1 each, still in their government frames. If you are in a military town and bored, check out the second hand and charity shops! Amazing things sometimes appear!

@JLBeaugh 4 года назад

@@Zephyrmec After his passing, I received from my grandmother his US Burial Flag, Ship Book (Great condition) and a framed picture of Guam with his name, rank, and ship battle decorations.

@tankgirl2074 4 года назад

@WWeronko 5 лет назад

I have always considered the Alaska's as the best looking ship ever built.

@Diamonddogusa 5 лет назад

They are fine looking ships, but I think I favor HMS Hood.

@alaskausn 4 года назад

Same!!

@franky2shoes660 4 года назад

nah! The Texas, now that's one sexy ship!

@MrDgwphotos 4 года назад

I would put them in third. Iowa class, Atlanta class, then Alaska class.

@benmiz9742 4 года назад

Ben Miz For me it is a lucky dip between Alaska, Iowa class, and the scharnhorst. All have super sleek lines and look like bad mofo’s. I guess the scharnhorst was a real bad mofo given it was on the axis side.

@petesheppard1709 5 лет назад

Such a stinkin' beautiful ship!

@billbrockman779 5 лет назад

Pete Sheppard I agree. They are my favorite for good looking ships.

@richardmalcolm1457 4 года назад

A terrible waste of money, but yes, they really were splendid looking ships.

@McRocket 3 года назад

PS - Agreed. Simply, beautiful ships.

@jackhuffman9313 3 года назад

agreed

@montanabulldog9687 4 года назад

There isn't any question, the ship is clearly a BATTLECRUISER . . . tonnage alone, is proof of this ! . . .

@imperialmodelworks8473 Час назад

Not really. 12" guns aren't equivalent to battleship armament.

@alexjacobs8399 5 лет назад

Fantastic commentary! And some excellent wit as well. Loved the "... interesting underwater reefs" line. Rule Drachinifel!

@michaelmorley9363 5 лет назад

Thanks for posting this one. I've always thought the Alaskas were interesting ships, and it was great to learn about them in more detail.

@whateverthisis389 3 года назад

"They were designed to kill anything that can't run from it and run from anything it couldn't kill,and pray that Renown,Repulse,and Hood don't get involved," They were that scared of the British Battlecruisers? XD

@KatyushaLauncher 3 года назад

Though battlecruisers were technically no longer viable in WW2 they were a huge threat to any existing cruisers

@whateverthisis389 3 года назад

@@KatyushaLauncher technically they still pose a threat

@KatyushaLauncher 3 года назад

@@whateverthisis389 yeah

@mitchellsmith4690 3 года назад

Wait...Hood did what?

@whateverthisis389 3 года назад

@@mitchellsmith4690 be *MENACING*

@GeorgiaBoy1961 4 года назад

Great series - thank you for putting it together. I have been studying military history, in particular WWII history, for a very long time now, but had not heard of this class of vessel prior to seeing your video. That's one of the coolest things about this field of history; there are always new and interesting things to be learned, even for an old sea dog such as myself. Thanks again...

@robertnichols4833 4 года назад

Best Drachinifel comment ever about American ships (ROFLMAO): "And of course in keeping with the American policy of allowing almost every member of the crew a chance to exercise their Second Amendment rights..." Brilliant and made my day.

@GenJackOneill 5 лет назад

This video is about to spike alot in popularity from 2/27/19 on with Alaska releasing on World of Warships. This is a Very helpful video getting to know the real ship before sailing her ingame. o7

@SeanEasterling 5 лет назад

And the Alaska in WoWs didn't fail to please. T9 Heavy Cruiser with Great HE and AP.

@cnlbenmc 4 года назад

And we'll probably see them in Warthunder around 2023, maybe.

@Maty83. 4 года назад

Hell, I got her based on this video a while back. Fun part is you can actually cheek citpen Yamatos under 7km. Just to show you how overpowered her guns are. Plus, the best part of the play is, as designed, blowing up cruisers. Especially ones who are not avare of your presence. She is such a sexy beast. Makes me wonder why she still only had a cruiser amount of 5'/38s.

@wheels-n-tires1846 4 года назад

Did i miss it on Blitz?? Or was it not available? Id love to have it on there!!!

@MrNevin86 3 года назад

i love this ship in game one of 3 ships I have brought in world of warships. though she could use a few torpedo mounts for fun

@wise_guy4230 5 лет назад

I love the commentary in here. Several good lines already, and only halfway through. Well done sir.

@darkhorse13golfgaming 5 лет назад

An aspect of this period of time I am fascinated by is some of the ways the various nations worked with, around and occasionally through the naval treaties of the time. As a ground pounder I'm well aware of the holy trinity of tank design (mobility, armor and firepower) and I see the design of warships follows a similar thought process.

@jedimasterdraco6950 2 года назад

Well to be fair, the first tanks were essentially seen as akin to "land warships"; the British even designated a lot of their tanks as "cruiser" tanks.

@francisbusa1074 4 года назад

As viewed from the air, one can see the obvious lines of a cruiser, especially when it's next to a battleship.

@calibulaminus4778 5 лет назад

man i just love your style and your humor also the format its lovely

@raygiordano1045 5 лет назад

As many lame suggestions RU-vid has made for videos I might like, Drachinfel isn't one of them. Between the humor and the great information, I heartily second your compliment for Drachfel's talents.

@dennisnichols2411 5 лет назад

I've been waiting for this one. Probably the most interesting class of warships the United States Navy ever put to sea. It's definitely so for me- I've always been fascinated with the Alaskas.

@markrobson8747 4 месяца назад

Dear Lord,Drach I'm following up your excellent review and apart from techniques am still rolling with your comic genius!

@CaptRye 5 лет назад

The alaska is ONE SEXY SHIP. shame they scrapped it :(

@jarvisfamily3837 5 лет назад

@@Future-Preps35 The Alaska's had the same problem that every battlecruiser-type of vessel ever built had - it was a stupid idea from the word go. The battlecruiser was Jackie Fisher's idea - ships with a main battery only slightly smaller than a battleship and lighter armor, ships which counted on speed to outmaneuver an enemy, ships that could beat any cruiser known and run away from any battleship. The problem with this idea is that it simply didn't work, and I can prove it with six words: Hood, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible, Lützow. HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy - and was sunk within eight minutes of opening fire at the Battle of the Denmark Strait when one or more shells from Bismarck penetrated her too-light armor, reached her magazines, and blew her in two. The remaining four ships - three of the Royal Navy and the latter of the German High Seas Fleet - were lost at Jutland. In all cases, they were unable to outmaneuver the incoming rounds from their opponents and were sunk. And at Jutland, a fourth British battlecruiser - HMS Lion, David Beatty's flagship - was nearly lost when one of her (lightly armored) turrets was blown open by a German shell, and only the heroism of the turret commander who, with his legs having been blown off, dragged himself to the speaking tube and ordered the magazines flooded, saved her (he got the VC for that - posthumously). All of the heavy modern units that were lost at Jutland on both sides were battlecruisers.

@DuckyGoose74 5 лет назад

she's my second favourite ship, after des moines

@DuckyGoose74 5 лет назад

@@jarvisfamily3837 they weren't fighting enemies they were supposed to fight against ( cruisers ) i guess ?

@jarvisfamily3837 5 лет назад

@@DuckyGoose74 After the expenditures were made on battlecruisers, the push was on to find a use for them - and both the Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine decided, "Hey, we've got these fast ships - we'll use 'em as a scouting force for the battleships! Woo!". Yeah. First problem - in the 19-teens all search was visual. There was no radar yet. You had to send ships out, put guys with Mark I Mod 0 eyeballs up in the spotting tops (hopefully assisted by telescopes, binoculars, and etc) and get them to eyeball their opponents. Second problem - in anything but perfect weather, by the time you can *see* your opponent A) they can see you, and B) they can hit you with their main battery. The thinking was that at long range - well, no worries, they can *shoot* at you but surely they won't *hit* you. Right? Wrong. Gunnery had gotten better - because both navy's knew the weak points of each other's ships. They knew that *if* they could put a long-range round on target it could easily slice through the thinnest armor on their opponents battlecruisers - and the thinnest armor on these misbegotten beasts was their deck armor. The assumptions about how poorly long-range gunnery would perform was baked into these designs. But the tactics and equipment kept improving. Worse - a battlecruiser did not represent a significant cost savings over a full-on dreadnought battleship, so even that wasn't a reason to build these things. Feh.

@DuckyGoose74 5 лет назад

@@jarvisfamily3837 so battlecruisers are useless , am i right ?

@heatherterpstra6233 4 года назад

"Japan was developing super-cruisers" that's, that's a battleship

@shawncarroll5255 4 года назад

"That's not a moon cruiser, it's a battle station." to fully mangle the quote.

@silvermane1741 3 года назад

Well a "Super Cruiser" can be synonymous with a "Fast Heavy Drednaught Cruiser" or "Large Cruiser"

@christianwilson5956 3 года назад

Battlecruiser

@cogidubnus1953 5 лет назад

These videos represent to me, some of the most comprehensible and interesting appreciations on the internet - even a moron like me can generally see what's being driven at...and they're far from humourless either! Thank you so much for the time and trouble of preparing, producing and posting these...

@mflashhist500 5 лет назад

Just caught up with this episode, a great presentation & discussion. Keep up the good work! I have always thought of a “wotif” scenario where the Alaska’s has been commissioned in time for the Solomons Campaign how they could have reversed some of the earlier results and shredded the Japanese cruisers...

@matthewrobinson4323 5 лет назад

Great video, as always. I can't tell you how much angst I have suffered over the decades, over the proper designation for battlecruiser! "Is it a breath mint? Is it a candy mint? STOP! You're BOTH right!". Sorry. I'll go take my meds. 😜

@scottb8175 4 года назад

One comparison that puts the Alaska class into perspective for me is that they are actually close to the Scharnhorst class (a small gun battle-cruiser in my book) in displacement and speed, and the Alaska outguns them. The Scharnhorsts are often referred to as small battleships because of the armor and protection, and were often considered to be similar in capability to Repulse and Renown despite the latter's obvious huge advantage in main armament. I think that in a gun duel between the Alaskas and Scharnhorsts, it would have come down to gunnery skills and luck. I can't think of any cruiser that would have had a prayer against either of these classes of ships other than running away....so battle cruiser it is.....

@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 Год назад

@scottb8175 Gneisenau & Scharnhorst were originally designed to be mounted with 3 x 2 15" guns

@justinarchibald3857 5 лет назад

Best large cruiser boondoggle ever!!

@Hruljina 5 лет назад

My absolute favorite US ship of all time. Ty!

@palious13 5 лет назад

As far as I'm concerned, their size, speed and armament make them battlecruisers.

@MrNicoJac 2 года назад

But Drach addressed the armament, and said that their guns were smaller than their contemporary battleships. So did you miss that, do you disagree, or did I misinterpret him? :)

@Sh9168 4 года назад

My father was a gunner on USS Alaska CB1. I have the ships book.

@theguyinmaine 6 месяцев назад

My dad was on it too, he was a Marine. Any info would be appreciated. Since he didn't talk much. I did get to go see it as a kid before it was scrapped, I believe anchored in the Hudson.

@estoyaqui5386 5 лет назад

Excellent narration! Love these "old-fashioned" documentaries. Subscribed, liked and looking fwd to more.

@andrewfanner2245 5 лет назад

Large Light Cruiser. Good ebnough for Jackie Fisher so easily good enough for everyone else:-)

@Nyctasia 5 лет назад

Fisher was sort of correct. They were a scaled up cruiser hull design, and the government had banned the construction of new capital ships during the likely duration of the war, so larger cruisers fitted with any guns were allowed. The idea made sense to get the guns to sea, and if the ships had radar would have been viable. Sadly 4 guns was too few for ranging in WWI so they were only of marginal use as gun ships, though they did offer good service as minelayers and torpedo platforms in theory...

@Custerd1 4 года назад

Small Fast Battleship.

@ThomasAffoltertevis 5 лет назад

I can't say exactly why but I just love this ship! Such a beast.

@CharlesRWard 5 лет назад

I find your channel interesting, and understand your reason for not covering cold war era ship. I would like to suggest coverage of auxilaries, like USS Vestal AR4.

@Zephyrmec 5 лет назад

Charles Ward I had a good friend, now deceased, who was at Pearl Harbor, and through the war was crew on two ships that were sunk. He retired as a chief machinists mate in 1958. I used to have a great time asking him about being sunk, but not at Pearl, and then ask him as if I could not remember what ship he was on at the time... “hey chief! What ship was it you were stationed on at Pearl? The Vestal wasn’t it?? He would almost explode. During his whole career, he served aboard destroyers and cruisers, and volunteered to remain on sea duty at every opportunity.... in 21 years he only served 42 months of shore duty, and hated it. A true sailor, “Haze Gray and Underway” he always said: “if you’re a sailor, you belong aboard a warship, at sea. If you want shore duty, join the damned Army” He was the proverbial old salt!

@sarjim4381 5 лет назад

Count me in the "Large Cruisier" camp, but with some planning and work, these could been instead CBAA class ships. The concept of the Atlanta class enlarged to twenty-two 5"/38 twin mounts for a total of 44 barrels, eighteen 40mm quad mounts for a total of 72 barrels , and somewhere between thirty-six and forty 20mm twin mounts for a total of 72 to 80 barrels would have made these ships a nightmare for Japanese aviators. Deleting the 12" guns and their magazines would have freed up space for installing all the PPI radar screens and plotting tables to enable the Alaska class to be the USN's first true fighter control ships. They could have also been more easily converted to antiaircraft missile ships postwar. [Edited to correct some mistakes between mounts and barrels]

@bigblue6917 5 лет назад

Some interesting thoughts there, Sar Jim

@sarjim4381 5 лет назад

@@bigblue6917 Thanks. I fixed it so I wasn't mixing mounts and barrels. The Alaskas could have been really formidable antiaircraft ships if if was recognized early on that a large cruiser platform could have been more effective than the enlarged destroyer types of the Atlanta class.

@xt6wagon 5 лет назад

@@sarjim4381 Problem is that large AA ships with no other role are in most ways worse than two smaller ships that total that amount of AA. A single unit is a large expensive target, and lacks the abilty to be in more than one place at a time. Two smaller ships can cover a wider arc around the capital ship, or if there is enough to cover all angles like there should be... then they can go for more depth of coverage forcing the enemy to run a much larger gauntlet of fire or switch to attacking the light ships first.

@sarjim4381 5 лет назад

@@xt6wagon That's true except the only role for the AA version of the Alaska wouldn't be just gunfire. It would be as a fighter control ship to vector in fighters to destroy the enemy before they can break through the CAP. A ships needs size and volume to fulfill that role while still being able to keep up with the carriers. Two smaller ships can't do that. The USN kind of used this concept with their "Sea Control" ship of the 60's that never got built.

@maxchan2452 5 лет назад

Why not be like the German's Deutschland class cruisers and call them pocket battleships?

@jamesbednar8625 5 лет назад

Great video about an often forgotten/overlooked vessel of U.S. WWII navy. Knew about the USS Alaska - knew very little to nothing about USS Guam, or how many of this class of ships were actually planned. Everything that I have ever read about USS Alaska was that the navy wanted the ship badly but really did not know what to do with it once they received it. Since it had all those AA guns, carrier escort was the main mission during the war. USS Hawaii - after almost completion it was straight to the scrap yard. Seems that USN was "embarrassed" to have even had these ships in the inventory.

@shoootme 5 лет назад

If it was jsdf we would be calling it a large gun destroyer, and no they still would not be fooling anyone.

@tokyozardoz 5 лет назад

They would be calling it a "rescue ship."

@ousou78 5 лет назад

"I swear we are not building aircraft carriers, our new flat ships only carry some hélicoptères -and later f35 eventually- " Or "I swear those ships are not whale fishing boats, they are naval laboratories for science !"

@andrewdarrell4970 5 лет назад

@keith moore Youre a massive idiot

@jll5446 5 лет назад

keith moore Brainlet detected

@timber_wulf5775 5 лет назад

shoootme because Japan shouldn’t be allowed to fight off Chinese aircraft sure

@deaks25 5 лет назад

From a historical context I think you're right, the Alaska's are large cruisers (Using Renown/Repulse as the true 'modern' battlecruiser example). For the layman I'd describe the Alaska's as battlecruiser because "Large Cruiser" would need to be explained in detail, along with Light Cruiser & Heavy Cruiser.

@CorePathway 10 месяцев назад

BFC. That should have been their hull designations: BFC-1 Officially Big Fast Cruiser, but we know that the crews would call them 😁

@uwantsun 3 года назад

Your wit, sir, is superb.

@jebsails2837 5 лет назад

As a Navy brat, I grew up in that Post WWII period when many of those ship types were still in service. We generally just used the term Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser. Thanks. Narragansett Bay

@michaelfuller2153 5 лет назад

Nice video! I have been working as a volunteer at the battleship USS Alabama. We are re-equipping the ship's photographic darkroom. The current curator and staff are doing a great job at restoring the ship! Best, Mike F.

@mdtdragon 5 лет назад

The Alaska class where the most beautiful of any BC's built.

@JohnSmith-kg2rt 4 года назад

“Large cruiser”

@IPeakedAt15 3 года назад

Large Cruiser*

@IPeakedAt15 3 года назад

@LOAN NGUYEN you stupid. I served with it in WWII I know what it is and it is a Large Cruiser

@IPeakedAt15 3 года назад

@LOAN NGUYEN you are still stupid I am a ship correct? The Alaska is a ship correct? It was in the US navy correct? The USS Missouri served beside the Alaska stupid.

@IPeakedAt15 3 года назад

@LOAN NGUYEN never in my life have I met someone so dumb lol

@drrsc 5 лет назад

My hat is off to you sir, for a very droll take on the situation: '..most of the Imperial Japanese Navy's Cruiser fleet was already forming a series of interesting artificial reefs..'

@Derby12hat 4 года назад

Was happy to hear the arguments regarding the ship designation controversary: Battle Cruisers vs Large Cruisers. I vote 60%CB vs 40%CC!

@newdefsys 5 лет назад

Great review ! I've researched the Alaska class cruisers in the past and came across the same debate in regards to pinning down a definitive designation for this class but I think there is enough uncertainty within historian circles to not call this class a 'battle cruiser'. They just did not fully measure up to that definition.

@SirBrass 4 года назад

Cruiser weight with "intermediate caliber" guns? You mean "assault cruisers"? 😛 (It's a joke based on the definition of "assault rifle")

@Yaivenov 3 года назад

Sturmschiffe!

@AdalbertSchneider_ 5 лет назад

finaly a video, where I can agree with you - enlarged Baltimor is nothink else than Large Cruiser ! Thank you.

@ob1983 5 лет назад

These videos are excellent! Thanks so much. 🍺

@springtime1838 5 лет назад

Here in Alaska we love this Class of Warship and even today it's hard to tell what Classification a Ship Class is like how USS Ticonderoga was first DDG-47 a Destroyer and later on CG-47 a Cruiser

@xerty5502 5 лет назад

@@steamedcream7671 not as sure about the idea that there just as leathal have never managed (probably for good reason) to find real data on moder ships abilty to control missiles how big can they make there missile waves and ehat is the saturation point of the defenses given the ppwer amd number of radars you would need to handle more missiles argues in the favor of larger vesseles increased offensive and defensive capabilities bit like i said not a lot of information on this that i have found

@xerty5502 5 лет назад

@@steamedcream7671 fair enough and i agree on the grey area for modern ship classification VLS finished off the already eroding differnces in classification

@springtime1838 5 лет назад

@@xerty5502 If it helps the First 5 Ticongorga Class were really upgraded Kidd Class DDGs that were Upgraded ASW Spurance Class DD

@springtime1838 5 лет назад

And the Sejong the Great Class Destroyer has more missiles128 than a VLS Ticongorga Class Cruiser 122

@xerty5502 5 лет назад

@@springtime1838 i am aware ☺ realy not much differnce between the later ticondarogas and the arligh burkes (to lasy to look up proper spelling so you get best guess) was more focussed on the differnces in the larger modern frigets and the modern destroyers witch are usaly larger and specificly that larger vessels have room for either more similar and or larger/more powerful radar and fire control systems. Missile cappacity is not an unimportent statistic but was not relevent to the discussion at hand.

@kyle857 5 лет назад

I have been waiting for this one!

@kyanderson2461 5 лет назад

same here .

@scotthill8787 5 лет назад

Whatever, but, these videos are always the best part of Saturday morning for me. Thanks!

@aalhard 2 года назад

Your amusement at our AAA never gets old.

@glennricafrente58 4 года назад

"Duck season!" "Rabbit season!" "Duck season!" "Rabbit season!"

@glennricafrente58 3 года назад

@Da Big Kahuna Catfish I stand corrected!

@glennricafrente58 3 года назад

@Da Big Kahuna Catfish Oh, I know! Sorry, it's hard to convey tone, but I took no offense.

@dancox7329 5 лет назад

Exercise their 2nd ammendment rights in the face of the enemy! LMFAO 😂

@davidvasquez08 3 года назад

Guns blazing

@robandcheryls 2 года назад

Thank you for making me forget the current, with tales of the past. 🇨🇦

@BillFromTheHill100 3 года назад

Perhaps the most beautiful ship of WWII.

@allancarey2604 5 лет назад

Can you do a review of the scrap iron flotila (Ie the V&W class destroyers of the Royal Australian Navy during WW2)

@horselips 4 года назад

Cruiser guns top out at 8", with the heaviest cruisers displacing in the high teens to low twenties at most. That makes the Alaska and Guam battle cruisers. The decision is made, no further debate is necessary.

@patrickmurphy6775 4 года назад

Excellent and humorous narration!

@salem8251 5 лет назад

Honestly, these are some of if not my absolute favorite ships despite the fact they never saw surface action.

@nualanet 5 лет назад

I would love to see a review of: HMS E-11 USS Abbot DD 629 USS Memphis ACR 10 (former USS Tennessee) USS Castine U.S. SC and PC class sub-chasers

@stashyjon 5 лет назад

loving these vids. How about some on the German WW2 merchant raiders, Atlantis, Thor etc?

@stephanegroulx4679 5 лет назад

What a beautiful ship.

@richardthorn7726 5 лет назад

Most enjoyable and informative.

@Hibrass 5 лет назад

Love the 2nd amendment rights joke! 😁

@kyle857 5 лет назад

I think the US tendency to put AA everywhere it was fit was influenced by the experience at Pearl Harbor.

@bigblue6917 5 лет назад

@keith moore You have begged for British help on more then one occasion. Vietnam for example.

@bigblue6917 5 лет назад

@keith moore American on at least two occasions asked Britain to supply soldiers to fight in Vietnam. This was because US generals wanted British troops fighting there. Johnson even came to the UK to ask. So whether it was you personally who was asked is irrelevant. America did ask Britain to send troops.

@Hibrass 5 лет назад

keith moore Damn Keith.. I don’t think he meant offense.. Hell I probably have more guns than any 5 people on this list.. lol. Now as far as Vietnam is concerned well I keep that to myself since it killed my father and ruined my stepdad. 😞

@CSSVirginia 5 лет назад

@@bigblue6917 What was the reason? Just man power, or did they think the British had experience in that kind of war? (Honest question, not trolling.)

@Rodneythor 5 лет назад

I would love to see an in depth review of the USS West Virginia.

@lumberlikwidator8863 2 года назад

Norman Friedman, author of a series of design histories of US warship types, included the Alaska class in his book on US cruiser design. The fact that they were scaled-up from the Baltimore class heavy cruisers, had cruiser armor and length-to-beam ratio, were armored on a cruiser scale, and did not carry Battleship caliber guns, all place them in the large cruiser category. I have observed that British authors tend to refer to them as battlecruisers, while American writers usually call them large cruisers. Nice profile of this class, Drach, and thank you for respecting the US Navy's own designation for these ships. It appears that the US Navy never built any battlecruisers, and the only ones it designed were the Lexington class, two of which were completed as carriers, with the remainder being scrapped. I know these ships are usually considered expensive failures and white elephants, but if they had been available in 1942 they might have been very useful in the night battles off Guadalcanal. If they could have avoided catastrophic shell hits and Long Lance torpedoes, they might have been able to make mincemeat of Hiei and Kirishima with their high speed and heavy caliber, radar directed gunfire.

@grizwoldphantasia5005 Год назад

They key to me is that battle cruisers have battleship guns, cruiser speed and armor. The Alaska class did not have battleship guns of the time, which were 16 inch. Therefore they were either light battle cruisers or super heavy cruisers. Since light battle cruiser is almost an oxymoron, they were super heavy cruisers.

@lumberlikwidator8863 Год назад

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I agree completely. Some people, primarily British, insist on calling them battlecruisers, but I think the US Navy designation of Large Cruiser is the best way to describe them. I wish they had been completed a few years earlier, they might have been able to shorten the US battle for Guadalcanal and save a lot of casualties among our Marines.

@chris_hisss 2 года назад

Thanks so much! Amazing this race and how it ended.

@sd501st5 5 лет назад

So "Large Cruiser" it is then, which literaly translates to the german "Großer Kreuzer"... which was the designation that WW1 Era High Seas Fleet used for Derfflinger, Seydlitz, Von der Tann, Hindenburg and the others which were laid down and planned. ;)

@krislampe7244 3 года назад

@Findlay Robertson the right term for it is Schlachtkreuzer :P

@thomaslinton1001 4 года назад

"The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."[40] [40] All Hands, December, 1945, "Sleek, Fast, Deadly- Our New CB's"

@w8stral 4 года назад

No. Iowa's were battlecruisers. Montana class were the battleships. In fact, every "battleship" built after WWI post 1920, were all battlecruisers with ONE exception: Yamato class. Every nation had proposed ~60,000ton+ ships after battle of Jutland had made vividly apparent to everyone that armor as currently built was.... crap compared to the guns in question. WWII "battleships" were no more better armored than their late WWI counterparts.

@Joesolo13 4 года назад

@@w8stral So they were similarly armored to their WWI battleship cousins? I can see your argument but disagree. You can compare Iowa to the Hood, and while they have similar thickness in parts(especially the main belt), the turret armor and decks are significantly thicker.

@w8stral 4 года назад

@@Joesolo13 Slight change.... yet the guns got MUCH stronger and fire control much better. Hood was a battlecruiser not a battleship. So was the Iowa. UK had a battleship design. Drach has even covered them: N3/G3. Whole "Battleship/Battlecruiser" designation completely failed post Washington naval treaty, so.... I think everyone understood this at the time of design and why the IOWA's were called fast battleships as patterned after HMS Hood. Far as I am concerned, "fast battleship" is nothing but a Euphemism for battlecruiser and everyone at the time knew it as everyone at the time had battlship designs which were all ~20,000 tons HEAVIER than the ships which were actually built. Other than the Yamato class of course.

@megalodon7916 4 года назад

@@w8stral They were fast battleships, not battlecruisers. They were designed to be able to engage enemy battleships on equal terms. Battlecruisers were not. They were not designed to sacrifice armor for speed like battlecruisers. Fast battleships and battlecruisers are two different types of ships. Both were designed to be fast, but fast battleships were better armed and were more heavily armored than battlecruisers.

@w8stral 4 года назад

@@megalodon7916 Definition of battleship? Ability to withstand its own guns and opponenets over a WIDE range of immunity. Could the Iowa's do that? No. Ok, so no, they were not battleships. Big bad Battlecruisers, yes. Only the Yamamoto's built after WWI were the only Battleships built of that period. Everything else were battlecruisers.

@stephengardiner9867 Год назад

O.K... no sooner do I ask if carrier conversion had ever been considered than you answer that question! Next time I will see the whole video out before putting my hand up!

@jamessimms415 4 года назад

Simply because of those wonderful, tongue in cheek quotes; this video is now saved as a ‘Favorite’

@michaelsnyder3871 5 лет назад

The actual designation of the "Lexington" class was "large scout cruiser", not battlecruiser. Their primary purpose was strategic, operational and tactical reconnaissance, not the running down and destruction of enemy cruisers. The rise of long range submarines and of aviation replaced them as strategic and operational scouts. But they would still have been tactical scouts in pushing through the enemy screen to confirm the size, bearing and speed of the enemy main force. However, it is probable that in an unrestricted (ie. impossible) alternate history, they would have become surface escorts for carriers or been converted, aviation taking over the tactical scouting. This would have been possible because the US program following the "South Dakotas (BB-49)" was the BB1918, a combination of "South Dakota" armament and protection with "Lexington" machinery, giving a ~50,000 ton standard displacement fast battleship with 12x16" guns, 13.5" belt armor and 30 knots speed.

@Drachinifel 5 лет назад

On the flip side, the designation of "large scout cruiser" is about as believable as Fishers "large light cruiser" or the current Japanese "helicopter destroyers" :)

@michaelsnyder3871 5 лет назад

The "Alaska" class have often been called "battlecruisers", but they were designed and built to cruiser standards, not capital ship standards. Take a look at the "Baltimore" class interior and exterior design plans and what "Alaska" looks like is an expanded "Baltimore". The USN's own description of the "Alaska" is a "large cruiser unconstrained by Treaty" limits". Just as it is better to consider the French "Dunkerque" and "Strabourg" as "small" "fast" battleships rather than battlecruisers given their design characteristics and as prototypes for the "Richelieu" class fast battleships. And just where the "Scharnhorst" class lies in international standards with battleship protection and battlecruiser armament is worth a discussion though they did follow the German format of fast capital ships with battleship standard protection and lighter main armament.

@BOORAGG 5 лет назад

Cruiser standards, battleship armament, cruiser speed: Battlecruiser.

@firesail6707 3 года назад

Thank you for not putting that issue to rest...

@karlmoles6530 3 года назад

I love the standardized symmetry of the USS Newport News, USS Alaska, and USS Iowa. They were the best gun ships and the prettiest ships the US Navy ever built.

@wb6wsn 4 года назад

Drach: How did a cruiser or battleship store and supply ammunition to the large number of 40mm & 20mm AA gun positions? Was there a main AA magazine behind armor, or were there multiple distributed ammunition lockers? Was ammunition transported across weather decks on carts or was there a protected internal distribution system?

@johnhenrey8964 2 года назад

train style carts usually. Until elevators, a chain tow was used to pull the ammo up.

@marcatteberry1361 5 лет назад

I love the "2nd Amendment Rights" level of Armaments available for all! Dry humor, wet eyes here.. Carry on

@nordic5628 5 лет назад

its a long ways away but i am looking forward to Rolf Krake it will be the first Danish ship you cover i hope to see more of these

@e-care-books9867 4 года назад

Well done on the photo gathering, Drach!

@davidshafer1872 5 лет назад

Please do an episode about the U.S. Destroyer William D. Porter; nicknamed "The Most Unlucky Ship in the Navy."

@ginnrollins211 3 года назад

*clears throat in an overdramatic fashion* Uh, banzai. *Plane blows up destroyer*

@shawnc1016 3 года назад

With the subplot of the most successful U.S. aerial torpedo attack of 1942.

@samuelhartmann1824 5 лет назад

The battle-cruiser name would stick if they gave them 14 inch guns instead of the 12 but since they have 12 they were almost battle-cruisers so yes the large cruiser name is appropriate. If the battle in the Philippines had happened and the us battle line had met the Japanese including Yamato the Alaskas would have been used to support the cvs along with the other cruisers rather than sent into the line of battle which is what the true battle-cruisers were ultimately designed to be capable of. I see the Alaskas as a final evolutionary diversion of where to take the cruisers in its heaviest form as they went for caliber as opposed to the relative contemporary of the des moines which went for just overwhelming daka.

@bigandfluffy780 5 лет назад

My way of keeping track of "super cruisers" and battlecruisers is...suoer cruisers are upgunned cruisers while battle cruisers are down armoured battleships

@janis317 5 лет назад

@@bigandfluffy780 truthfully there is no difference, Battle Cruisers were designed with the exact same mission as the Large Cruiser, to dominate every other nation's standard cruisers. Battle Cruisers were never designed to take place in a line of battle with proper Battleships, they were a scouting and support force to be used around the flanks of the main battle line, just as a Large Cruiser would be.