As a aircraft model maker I would be interested if you were to find information on the type of aircraft, crew and unit related to this and other instances where fairly specific aircraft and units were involved in ship sinkings as part of the story

What was the ancient Spartans primary port and is anything left today?

did the royal navy use 50 brownings or 50 vickers during WW2?

The frying pan mounts on the QE's and Illustrious, what are their official names?

Hi! I'm a student that draw warships a lot and I have many questions about the visual aspects and fine details of WW2 naval warfare. I'll just dump them here for you to read through! Thank you so much for your content! 1. Were artillery shells visible in the air and would they glow? Similar to the depiction in world of warships? Would there be any warning before shells land? 2.. What did the Japanese colored shells look like? Did they really explode with gigantic plumes of color, or was it more subtle? 3.. Did the Japanese have flak or not? I've heard many conflicting statements about this, some saying Japan never had flak and instead only used beehive shells for all ships with 100mm guns and above, some saying only the battleships had beehive shells, etc etc... 4.. What was the average visibility range on a ship? Would a ship 15km away even be visible? At what ranges would you be able to clearly tell what type of ship you're looking at? 5.. Of all the Japanese carriers, which ones actually had the big red circle on the flight deck? I've seen several different interpretations of them, all drawn differently. 6.. Why did Japan never get radar? It seems like so many of the Japanese losses were due to a lack of a decent radar. Why didn't they just borrow radar technology from the british before war broke out? 7.. Intensity of battle and ease of aiming? On fast-firing ships like clevelands and fletchers, did the crew ever try to aim for certain parts of the enemy ships, or was there not enough time for that level of precision? Generally, what was the mood of naval warfare? was precision a big concern or was it more like "just hitting them alone is already very lucky, can't ask for any more than that". 8. On small ships like destroyers who can't outright sink capital ships, I'd imagine there would be attempts to "blind" them by specifically aiming for the radar sets and rangefinders. Did that ever happen? 9. What's it like in the turret of a destroyer? It must've been horrendously chaotic to try to aim with the constant pitching of a destroyer at flank speed. Did the gunners manually compensate or were there computers to do it all for them? Were there any stories of crew trying to aim the guns with all the machinery and rangefinding knocked out? 10. Really curious about the akizuki class! Did they see any action at all? 11. Did any of the Japanese destroyers get into gun fights with bensons/fletchers? Who came out on top? 12. Realistic fire rate of naval guns in WW2? Did tired/injured crew play a part? Were destroyers really able to fling shells once every 4-5 seconds? 13. Torpedo dodging? How visible were torpedoe wakes anyways? 14. Was armour angling a real thing in naval warfare? 15. How often did the secondary battery of a battleship ever see action? Were they effective in WW2

Ah a man of culture I see

Of course, she's finishing the fight by herself🤷🏻‍♂️

You had to say it. . . Say what. . .fight in the shade

*THIS* *IS* *BRITANNIA*

@@proactiveomnipresentvessel6569 She did fight in the shade - one of the reasons she got sunk

There were a lot more Greeks at the Hot Gates than the Spartans "Thermopylae is primarily known for the battle that took place there in 480 BC, in which an outnumbered Greek force probably of 7,000(including 300 Spartans, 500 warriors from Tegea, 500 from Mantinea, 120 from Arcadian Orchomenos, 1,000 from the rest of Arcadia, 200 from Phlius, 80 from Mycenae, 400 Corinthians, 400 Thebans, 1,000 Phocians, 700 Thespians, and the Opuntian Locrians)"

High ABV alcohol does have antibacterial properties. 😉

This is...DRACHINIFEL!

Here’s to Alastair MacLean’s HMS ULYSSES!

My grandfather was also on this ship when she sank. He was in one of the main front turrets when the bomb hit. He was very lucky to get out.

THIS IS LESBOS!!!

This I want to know

I’m sure that Louis Le Bailey mentions that they became more susceptible to foundering from damage when they became “lighter” from firing off ammunition and when fuel bunkerage was reduced. It’s been a while since I read his autobiography (well worth a read - not very complementary about certain RN departments) but I’m sure that’s what he said.

Makes sense given that they represented the classic problem of compromise. The Royal Navy had a choice between making a bunch of destroyers or a handful of cruisers of 10,000 tons to meet a need; They chose the middle ground by procuring sixteen ships around 6,000 tons. The result was basically a bunch of very large destroyers with all the survivability problems inherent in very lightly-built ships. Really, as much as I want to like the ships, they were a seriously questionable investment at a time when the USA was commissioning ships like USS Brooklyn with fifteen six-inch guns and eight five-inch guns at under 10,000 tons!

@@genericpersonx333 Well the U.S. Navy had much more resources. And sixteen 6000 tons ships do much more work than six or eight 10000-12000 tons ships (at a higher attrition rate unfortunately, but this was expected). And despite magnificent hulls and guns and all the armour in the world , this was of little use against such new weapons. HMS Warspite was gutted (and only partially repaired) by a hit and a near miss of the Fritz-X, RN Roma (two hits and a near-miss) was sunk and RN Italia damaged, and these were battleships! Savannah (Brooklyn class) was gutted pretty well and left idle in the water by one hit of a guided bomb (took 8 months to fix the ship) . There are dozens of such examples.

@@genericpersonx333 Atlanta class.

@@sandrodunatov485 For sure, there were arguments for the Didos, which is why they were built, but they still lacked the versatility for the tonnage, which somewhat defeats the purpose of having more cruisers to cover more area. They basically were no good against other cruisers, a lot more expensive than destroyers, and proved not much more durable than destroyers as well. Since protection of commerce against enemy cruisers was a critical mission of the Royal Navy, investing in so many ships that couldn't viably engage enemy cruisers on their own was a questionable use of resources.

Die.....or dine?

Dine :P

THIS IS SPARTAN!

Play the epic Sparta Remix

It's a ship, it should probably have been swarmed by aircraft and torpedo boats at Salamis for true authenticity...

Madness?

@@typehere6689 THIS IS SPARTAN!

The Italian battleship Roma was actually sunk by a Fritz X glide bomb, an unpowered by radio-steered 1400 kg (3000 lb) armour-piercing bomb meant specifically for use against armoured targets. A Fritz X also put Warspite out of action for months. The Henschel 293 was more of a missile in the sense that it had a rocket engine that propelled it for the first ten seconds and actual wings that allowed it to fly on a lower trajectory than a steered bomb like the Fritz X. It was meant to be used against softer targets and its bursting charge was a regular 500 kg bomb. Most warships sunk by the Henschel 293 were destroyer size or smaller; Spartan was the only cruiser.

@@jarmokankaanpaa6528 Thanks! I wondered about that. .

I'm guessing that will either be about the Liberty ship SS Nick Stoner or one of the six ships that have been named HMS Jamaica.

I'm hoping for a guide on all of La Galissonniere class but individual guides are welcome too.

Drak has already explained his pronounciation of Dido. We ex RN ratings pronounce her as you say.

As it should be... dido, pronounced dy-do or die-do.

Excuse me, the first AA cruisers were the converted Kaiser War C class vessels. The Didos (and the Atlantas) were the result of the Second London Treaty which limited cruisers to 8000 tons, which meant 6 inch guns were out. They were intended to be small conventional fleet cruisers, analogous to the Kaiser War C class, not as AA cruisers. The 5.25 inch with its 80 pound shell was much more oriented to surface than AA work.

@@colbeausabre8842 The C lass conversions came after the original design that led to the Tribals

ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE SUPPORT!!! HA OOOH

The RN invented it when they Kaiser War vintage C class. They were the first step towards the cruiser being part of a task force screen rather than operating indepently

Man, did I mess that up Anyway, here goes again The RN invented the AA cruiser when they converted Kaiser War vintage C class. They were the first step towards the cruiser being part of a task force screen rather than operating independently

@@colbeausabre8842 you can delete and edit posts. Thank god you can !!! Jeez, some of the bollocks I’ve typed in a hurry. And auto-correct doesn’t help either. Anyway, thanks for that. I’ll look that stuff up.