The Drydock - Episode 249 (Part 2)

00:00:00 - Intro

00:00:29 - By the dreadnought era for capital ships, where is the tipping between "this ship is sinking" and "this ship has sunk"?

00:02:00 - How did the maximum effective engagement range change over time?

00:11:15 - Effects of an underweight ship?

00:16:10 - What is the decision making process when deciding to increase shell calibre or increase gun length, and how did this lead to the procession of guns from the dreadnaught period onwards?

00:22:49 - Have you heard of the Spanish submarine the Ictineo and its inventor Narcis Monturiol? What are your thoughts on his submarine that was decades ahead of its time?

00:27:19 - 12-gun HMS Vanguard?

00:29:50 - After the invention of internal combustion engines, did any ship try to combine them with a producer gas generator?

00:32:37 - Had Admiral William Fisher lived to lead the Royal navy during WW2 what kind of impact would he have had on the Royal navy?

00:35:09 - The physics of ships vs boats leaning into and out of turns?

00:40:35 - Purpose-built Japanese torpedo cruiser?

00:42:47 - Replica's of historic ships?

00:49:04 - Which warships besides the CSS Hunley sank with all hands more than once?

00:50:59 - Why was Admiral Lütjens so hesitant to open fire at the Battle of the Denmark Strait?

00:58:35 - Kantora Shimoda and constantly getting torpedoed?

01:00:40 - Are there any Kilted naval units within the Royal Navy?

01:01:36 - Discrepancies in listed armour for ships belts?

01:07:50 - Reusing the 'Arizona' name?

01:10:15 - How big a gun to disable Yamato or Montana with HE/CPC only?

01:14:28 - Why did the British not use the 14 inch gun developed for export? Is the 13.5 inch gun significantly better?

01:17:48 - Warships 'riding the wake' of other ships?

01:20:42 - Why didn't Titanic's bulkheads include a horizontal component?

01:23:34 - Floating net to recover floatplane?

01:25:39 - Props in the bow?

01:28:39 - What's the difference between a 'quick firing' gun and it's non quick firing counterparts? How did they become quick firing?

01:31:58 - Ship expansion joints and the citadel

01:35:36 - In Muppets treasure Island, all of a sudden there is no wind and everybody is trapped on the ship. Did that happen in real life? What happened if there was no wind on sailing ships.

01:37:59 - Did any nation think of making depth charge shells?

01:40:39 - Curved hull plates on an IJN DD?

[darrellsmith]

When it comes to sinking ships, I've always enjoyed Drach's statement on using torpedos vs using guns- you sink ships by letting water in the bottom, not air in the top.

[cartmann]

Also, for the record, HMHS Britannic, Titanic's sister ship, was completed using bulkheads all the way to the top.
Ironically, it sank in less than an hour because the nurses on board had left the portholes open for ventilation.

[Alobo]

On the question of sinking vs sunk, this reminded me of an incident our local chapter of Sea-Tow (marine rescue for hire) had with a customer. When the Sea-Tow boat arrived at the location, they declared the customer's boat "sunk" and wanted him to sign the salvage claim form. He, in turn, argued that since the top part was sticking out of the water, his boat was merely "run aground", and just needed the basic tow package.

[michaelmclaren]

Sinking: my feet are getting increasingly wet.

Sunk: I’m swimming

[mytube]

A few more points on the question about bow-mounted propellers. The propwash is an energized stream of water intended to push the ship in the opposite direction. If the prop is at the front, the propwash flows over the bottom of the hull, "giving back" some of the thrust as drag, so you lose efficiency and speed. Propellers in the stern also provide propwash over the rudders, giving better control at slow speeds.

[stevewindisch]

As always, thanks for the great content. Regarding "sinking", It could depend on water depth. In deep water, its obvious. In shallow water, a ship that settles on the bottom with some hull still visible at high tide may be considered "aground" until determined too damaged to salvage. If it was also capsized then maybe "wrecked" is the best term. Which is what happens to power boaters who foolishly drink too much ;)

[bachelorchownowwithflavor]

I doubt the sailors will consider the new Arizona unlucky. Rather than considering it unlucky to give a new ship a particular name because a previous holder met a bad end, I think we Americans view it as honoring the memory of the fallen ship to bestow its name on a new one. Just look at CV-10 Yorktown, CV-12 Hornet, CV-16 Lexington, and CV-18 Wasp. All of those ships (among others) were renamed pre-commissioning in honor of their very-recently sunken predecessors.

[davidvik]

The expansion joints are from the main deck up, and are to keep the flex of the of the hull from destroying the more lightly built upper works. Fletcher Class destroyers did not have expansion joints as such, but they had two gaps in the deck house that were connected by catwalks that had an overlapping plat that would move as the hull flexed. In a heavy swell. Standing at the stern looking forward it was easy to see the hull twist and flex, the long narrow hull of the Fletcher's was almost like a floppy fishing pole. On the other hand the Knox Class DE/FF had a hull that was on deck higher than the Fletcher's giving it greater stiffer. The O-1 Level was full length about 2/3 of the ships length, and had a expansion joint at the boat decks where there was a gap in the O-2 level. Holding a tape measure at the top of the joint while running head on to a heavy swell I was able to observe about half an inch of motion as the ship went from crest to trough. The joint was sealed with a rubber accordion fold, that on the O-1 level was covered by a hinged metal flap. Sweeping out the joint was a daily requirement to make sure there wasn't anything that could block it's motion. I submit that a more accurate term would be, "flex joint" since it deals mainly with the flex of the hull, and having little to do with thermal expansion.

As I am getting older keeping joints flexible is a Daily-1 on the PMS schedule!

[TomFynn]

"Sinking? Hell! We just have buoyancy in a different direction!"

[SSSeTEDS]

Reminder CV-10 (Yorktown) was named after CV-5 mere months after its sinking.

There is also a US cruiser names after a horrendous loss in Korea.

[Zarcondeegrissom]

2:00 How did the maximum effective engagement range change over time? the question reminds me of "The Battle of Medina Ridge" (1991) and how the weather visibility drastically affected targeting range for some engagements, while in other areas of the front, the allies were able to sit on a ridge and pick off t-72s from outside the range of the Iraqi forces. Fog and sand storms can have a drastic limiting factor on identifying what it is on your radar screen if the sea state also isn't horrendous making the radar equally as limiting.

[TheWareek]

that Spanish sub was absolutely brilliant. But did no one at the time think that it would have made an absolutely brilliant research vessel.

[palerider]

"The Blücher..."
*nervous whinnying intensifies*

[nickmariotti]

Glad that so far no one (Turks or otherwise) is trying to prevent Drach from using the Drydock theme music. I love that music!! Very 1920s Paul Whiteman-ish...

[greenseaships]

If television was still around I can imagine the History Channel (90s edition) having a Drachinifel marathon on Memorial day in the U.S.

[michaelkovacic]

When it comes to the question about the Scharnhorst's belt thickness, I do think there's an additional argument for the 350mm value:

During the design phase of the Bismarck class, engineers understood pretty quickly that armor protection would have to be reduced in some areas to keep the displacement from ballooning too much - mostly due to draft considerations, since the ships would have to use the existing German coastal infrastructure, and dredging the canals was apparently impractical or not deemed worthwile. Something that comes up somewhat frequently is the demand of Raeder for a 350mm belt, while engineers made studies which featured a reduction in belt thickness down to 290mm and even further to 260mm when it was decided to use the 380mm guns instead of the 350mm guns envisioned earlier.

Given that the Scharnhorst's hull was quite a bit smaller than the Bismarck's, draft considerations would not have been as severe and Raeder would probably have prevailed in his demand for a very heavy belt. Also, the original drafts for a 350mm gunned Bismarck also have the 350mm belt, which would fit in nicely with a 350mm belt on the Scharnhorst-class.

But overall, I do think that the effective difference in protection would have been not too spectacular. A 320mm belt backed by a 110mm turtleback was calculated by German engineers to be as effective as a 500mm belt, so penetrations through the side protection were certainly not the biggest issue. The decision for a 300mm belt on the H-class coupled with a major increase in deck protection clearly shows that German engineers understood their ship's vulnerability to plunging fire and made considerable efforts to rectify this issue.

[dougjb]

4:00 the naval interpretation of “reach exceeding grasp.”

[kanrakucheese]

On the kilt question: Worth noting ladders are much, much more common in the Navy compared to the Army.

[theonetruefunk]

Along with the Arizona, they are planning to name a sub the Oklahoma as well, and as far as I can remember, vets who served on both those ships endorse it

[TheAsh]

A wild Japanese Torpedo CRUISER appears!
Komchatka: Faints