😆

And we approve of such behavior!

@@ajlancjc99 well, for the guide anyway, not the Japanese 😆 Seriously, Japan should not ever be allowed to have a military again. The last time Japan had a real military they murdered several times the number of civilians then the Nazis did, and their culture is nearly as xenophobic and racist today as it was back then.

@Don White both China and Russia have incredibly weak economies (China's is a complete paper tiger and Russia doesn't even try to hide how weak their economy is) and both of their militaries are pitiful in comparison to the United States. If you're afraid of either one of those countries or even both together then you need to see a surgeon about those undescended bálls. You also need to read up on your history. Germany was responsible for about 16 million terminations. Japan was responsible for over 50 million, and that is not even including the people that perished due to the famines that the Japanese caused. If you include those people the number shoots up to well over 100 million. not only that, but Japan to this day is ruled by the same elite families that it was ruled by back then because we never prosecuted the vast majority of the war criminals because so many of them held positions of power, and we were trying to be pragmatic about reconstruction. The Japanese people have enshrined Emperor Hirohito as a god, when he should have been publicly hanged from the neck until he was dêãd for his crimes, and the Japanese Imperial family abolished. If Germans today worshipped Hïtlêr, how do you think the world would view it? to this very day they teach in Japanese schools that their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of self-defense, and most of them are ignorant enough to believe it. That is a serious problem, it shows that they have learned nothing. No, neither country should ever be allowed to have a military again. Not only is Japan just as rãçïst as it was back then, but literally every single time Germany has been a global military power they have started a World War. so even though Germany has gone too far in the other direction when it comes to bigotry, they have proven at every possible opportunity that they are not to be trusted with any real military power. it would seem that it is you who needs to wake up, grow a pair, and pick up a history book.

@@micfail2 i am willing to give you the second WW as started by Germany, but the first started on 28 June 1914, when Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated the Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, leading to the July Crisis. In response, on 23 July, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia's reply failed to satisfy the Austrians, and the two moved to a war footing. A network of interlocking alliances enlarged the crisis from a bilateral issue in the Balkans to one involving most of Europe. By July 1914, the great powers of Europe were divided into two coalitions: the Triple Entente-consisting of France, Russia, and Britain-and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (the Triple Alliance was only defensive in nature, allowing Italy to stay out of the war until April 1915, when it joined the Allied Powers after its relations with Austria-Hungary deteriorated).Russia felt it necessary to back Serbia and, after Austria-Hungary shelled the Serbian capital of Belgrade on the 28 July, approved partial mobilisation. Full Russian mobilisation was announced on the evening of 30 July; on the 31st, Austria-Hungary and Germany did the same, while Germany demanded Russia demobilise within twelve hours. When Russia failed to comply, Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August in support of Austria-Hungary, with Austria-Hungary following suit on 6 August; France ordered full mobilisation in support of Russia on 2 August. --> Russia, Austro-Hungaria and Serbia are the main countries that started the conflict. Imagine it like a alliance of Mexico and Canada both beeing industrialy near equals to the US and Mexico relying on the buildup off their reservist armies when mobilising before together outmatching the USA in military numbers and both hostile towards the USA. Guatemala as an US allie and Honduras as a mexican allie get into a military conflict. Mexico in support of Honduras mobilises all its troops, building up large forces even on the US-border. How would any given president of the USA react when Mexico after 3 days is not going to back down and is willing to escalete the conflict further? If you think of taking out the threat with your professional standing army before it is to late your reaction is exactly the same as the german in 1914. The Schlieffen-Plan was just unnessecary and brought the brits into the fight. And in 1914 every single european major power was armed up to its teeth, waiting for the next war to come, the Balkans was just the powder keg to light it all up. Just because the victors shove the blame up your b-hole doesn't mean you deserv it.

It's strange how both Japan and Germany lacked fuel and steel resources and yet built huge steel and fuel guzzling equipment.

@@raygiordano1045 it was only during wartime that they lacked to those resources and with the Japanese at least they had plans to limit that it's just the Americans foiled all of their plans. I cannot however speak on the German plans

@@the_undead The Japanese were dependant on imports before the war. A lot of their iron, steel, and most of their oil were imported from the U.S. Embargoes before the war and submarine warfare during the war did a good job of cutting Japan's supplies. Even if Japan had plenty of resources, their meager industry wasn't able to produce enough to replace loses, let alone keep up with the U.S. The Germans were reliant on Sweden for iron and Romania for oil. There wasn't a lot that could be done about Swedish imports, but refineries are very vulnerable to attack, likewise the means of transportation of fuel.

@@raygiordano1045 I can't speak on the Japanese plans to deal with the iron imports but if I remember correctly the whole reason they invaded the Dutch East Indies was because they could get maybe not enough oil to fully supply themselves but it would be oil production that they could add on top of their existing supply and any supplies they steal from invaded countries Naval basis etc. Again this is assuming that my memory serves in this situation

Also I didn't say they were good plans I just said they were plans

Jay Bee ,”captain look”

That's no island... that's a ship

@@JoseJimenez-sh1yi *HIGH SEAS INTENSIFIES*

@@UnfittingCarbon that's no moon

There's an old TV historical series, "The Silent Service" that has an episode on the Archerfish.

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

You're mistaken- or rather, the author is. Yamato herself was laid down almost a year after Japan had withdrawn from the naval treaties.

@@manilajohn0182 The author noted that Japan had withdrawn from the treaty system and retreated behind a wall of secrecy, but occasionally emitted reassuring noises to put the rest of the world off track about what was going on behind all those armed guards and sisal mats surrounding the building slips. :)

@@mrz80 There's nothing unusual about that at all, my friend. After the Japanese withdrew from the naval treaties, they were under no more obligation than any other nation to state details about what they were constructing. The British mislead the Germans in the exact same way prior to WW1. It's what nations do to other nations whom are viewed in an adversarial light- and they do it still. Cheers...

"No, we are not building battleships armed with 16 inch guns"-The Japanese government

Submarines? Have u even watched the video ? Only one was sunk by sub that was an aircraft carrier the battleships both got sunk by aircraft carriers lol

Oh wait...ok I miss read it yes it should be

Its a major part of why they did so little. The japanese were obsessed with the idea of an epic all out battle that would decide the outcome of the war and were pretty much terrified of the idea their superships would be in harbor getting patched up when it happened. So they held back, and continued to hold back, until there was nothing left but the hopelessly outnumbered superships and a never give up never surrender mentality.

Battleship: I am the pinnacle of human engineering! Nothing can oppose me on the surface of the seas! Submarine: Haha, torpedo go brrrrr. Carrier: Haha, airplanes go brrrr.

@@lordredlead2336 Are you talking about the IJN Taihō which was built on a battleship hull? That was sunk by a sub only by crew incompetence and lack of training.

That was corrected on Yamato after the Skate torpedo when the repairs were done at Kure.

@@frankwalder3608 Indeed but it seems it would have been impossible to comletely correct such defficiencies and you have to add the fact yamato hull was not designed to withstand the kind of torps the US navy used at the end of the war, when yamato had been built, the explosing charges of torpedoes were usually significantly lower. Furthermore having taken almost no parts in the WW1 naval slugfest, the IJN only modern taste of combat that is the war against russia did not allow them to progress as significantly as other nations in the field of structural damage caused by concusion. In fact Yamato and Musashi expected resilience was quite theorical whereas the Royan Navy and the US navy had had time to really think over the matter of structural damages induces by the pressure of blasts.

@@vlad78th @Frank Walder Do you know any online sources about those repairs and the general armor deficiencies of Yamato? I'd like to learn more about this.

Wow, that was a great read. How do you know so much? I assume you're an engineer of some sort

@@frankwalder3608 PART 1. No, it wasn't. The damage indicated that the thick wedge-shaped tapering lower belt plate (~8" thick of NVNC armor -- the same steel as the VH non-cemented form of very thick YAMATO Class face-hardened side armor but not face-hardened (Japanese engineers were very intelligent and made entirely bottom-line-rational decisions when allowed by their at the time overly-conservative culture) -- at the top where it touches the bottom of the ~16" VH inclined waterline belt), which also formed the upper part of one of the anti-torpedo system's layered spaced bulkheads, was much to rigid to handle torpedo concussion, blast, and shockwave effects properly. The same thing was found out by the US in its SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA Class anti-diving-projectile lower belt of very similar, but even thicker design, also used as one of the 5-spaced-layer anti-torpedo side system. Unlike the US lower belt, however, the Japanese anti-torpedo system could not be fixed significantly because: (1) The Japanese VH waterline belt and the NVNC tapered anti-diving-projectile lower belt met where the bottom of the former and the top of the latter were pressed tightly together with reinforced I-beam internal supports and overlapping external clamping plates plates at the joint of the two. Unlike the meetings between the many vertical joints in the row of thick plates in each belt layer (VH to VH and NVNC to NVNC), which were locked together by heavy interlocking edge grooves with nickel-steel keying stirps pressed into the grooves to firmly hold the joined plates together, the horizontal joints of the VH and NVNC boundary, unlike with the US boundary between the Class "A" waterline belt and the STS tapering lower belt, HAD NO KEYING STRIPS!! The ONLY thing holding the two rows of plates together was this external support system. While adequate in keeping the waterline VH belt and lower NVNC belt rigid against a heavy projectile impact, this same reinforcement system was totally and completely inadequate and counter-productive for supporting the lower belt when hit by the huge blast of the torpedo warhead detonation followed by the collapse of the bubble formed in the ocean by this blast that slammed back as the "water hammer" (essentially the "Fist of God" made up of high-speed water moving horizontally into the hole in the outer hull made by the warhead blast as the ocean comes back to refill with water the blast-expanded gas-filled bubble on the external side, but there is nothing on the ship hull side to slow it down -- air pressure is not even noticeable here). You need for the anti-torpedo layers, flexible, rather thin high-tensile steel plates -- not the much more rigid hardened homogeneous, ductile armor plates actually used in the lower belt layer -- that will bulge inward and stretch as much as possible before they tear open. As a result, when the MUSASHI torpedo hit occurred, the NVNC lower belt and VH armor waterline belt "parted company", with the lower belt upper edge being ripped free of the VH belt (which did not move very much, if at all) and bent backward into the ship . This pushed its internal upper end joint supports backward with it, punching holes through several inner bulkheads behind the lower belt layer and totally sabotaging those inner bulkheads' ability to keep the nearby ship volume from flooding. The repairs to MUSASHI increased the reinforcement behind the upper end the lower belt, but to fix the oversight of not creating the keying system between the waterline and lower belt (which could have been done, as in the US design) would have required tearing the hull apart over its entire amidships length on both sides and shipping all of the plates involved back to the manufacturer -- the shipyard could not possibly handle such a thing -- for redesign, then heavy machining to cut the needed keying grooves, and then manufacturing the many keying strips needed, after which the whole thing has to be shipped back to the shipyard and put back together one pair of plates at a time, and the ship then go through a complete, long, new-build shakedown. Impossible. Thus, additi9nal torpedo hits could not really be protected properly against and a different strategy of trying to handle the massive flooding that would always occur had to be devised. With the US designs strong keying strips joining the waterline and lower belt edges tightly together, it was the bottom edge of this lower belt near the joint at the lower hull's triple bottom, where the bulkhead was only 1.25" STS thick for most of it length behind the lower hull, that had the most tearing, not the top. Thus the damage due to the US Navy's simulated torpedo hits on SOUTH DAKOTA caused some excessive flooding, but much less internal hull bulkhead and deck damage than the MUSASHI suffered from its hit. (2) The US system, when this over-rigid lower belt problem was discovered in post-building tests of a mock-up of the SOUTH DAKOTA anti-torpedo system against the large submarine-fired torpedoes -- the system was still adequate against the smaller aircraft-dropped torpedoes at the start of WWII, but by the end of WWII even these had become much more powerful by the use of new explosives like the US Navy aluminum/enhanced-RDX mixture called Torpex (40% more powerful than TNT) and were similar to submarine torpedoes at the start of WWII in their effectiveness --.could do the following to mitigate to a large extent the fault: The original side protection had the outermost layer of the 4 spaces between the outer hull of 1" High-Tensile Steel (HTS) -- except directly in front of the Class "A" waterline belt, where the hull was 1.25" (SOUTH DAKOTA) or 1.5" (IOWA) STS armor -- and innermost HTS protective bulkhead (with a thin Mild Steel (MS) leakage-limiting bulkhead with a narrow gap just behind it) as an air gap ("void") about 4' wide at the top, the 3rd deck, which also was the bottom edge of the waterline belt, as mentioned (there was a gap in front of the waterline belt, too, that was 3' wide at the level of the upper edge of the waterline belt, the 2nd Deck, which was the primary 5-6" STS armored deck, too). Due to the slope of the waterline and lower belt being the same 19-degree tilt all of the way down to the ship bottom, this outermost gap got wider and wider as one went downward, which was of course the thing to do since the blast and following water-hammer effects of the torpedo warhead detonation were worse and worse the more compressed the water was deeper down. The 3 more inner HTS system bulkheads also were tilted the same, so they had constant width from top (at the level of the bottom edge of the waterline belt) to bottom, with the ship's triple bottom reinforcing the bottom edges of the bulkheads. The space directly behind the lower belt bulkhead (second space inboard) was water or, if needed, fuel-oil filled and kept filled with one or the other at all times. The next space (third from the outer hull) was separate by a 0.75" HTS bulkhead, more stretchable than the STS and about 80% as strong, and filled by water or fuel-oil, too. And the final space (fourth) was another void, behind which was the final 0.75" HTS 'holding" bulkhead protected the "vitals" of the ship. With all of the layers being like that and no lower belt special bulkhead thickness/steel type change, the system was proof at the start of WWII against most submarine torpedoes (at least circa 500 pounds or more of TNT, the "standard explosive" for such comparisons). With the lower belt change, the existing system could not stop early-WWII submarine torpedoes completely, though it would greatly reduce the internal damage caused by a hit and give the ship a chance to perhaps patch up the flooding and do some repairs to put back flooded spaces into operation again. CONTINUED

They sent them to die, that was the theme of all 4 of the axis super battleships. They were all pummeled to death without cover. They were a waste anyway, those would have been far better utilized as other fleet or air assets. the Terpitz would have yielded something like 20 destroyers. The 18” guns are overrated, Iowas 16’s fired a heavier projectile, faster, further and more accurately. In a cage match of an Iowa and Yamato class, the Yamato would lose every time unless it had surprise within gun range. The Iowa’s could act with impunity by out ranging and out gunning the Yamato class while using their superior speed and maneuverability to always keep Yamato in her range but not the other way.

stayros stamelos either way its mental masturbation, not to say it isn’t interesting. A cage match scenario isn’t how it works as we know. I maintain my premise that the 4 axis super battleships were objectively a waste. All 4 did nothing of significance that couldn’t have been done better by other assets, better utilized. The Americans building their 4 Iowa’s are a different grading criteria, they had the resources (anyway you cut it) to build their 4 or originally 6 fast-battleships. People mention the enormous cost of the Manhattan project, the B29 project was just as expensive for reference while the anglo American bomber force was already far superior and those are just to name a few. The US did not have to choose Iowas or destroyers etc. like the axis did. That is why I suggest that the 4 axis battleships are a waste while the 4 Iowa’s are whatever, a note in history. They came at a time when they had become obsolete by naval aircraft, whats 20 miles of strike range with what 4% accuracy when you can send planes hundreds of miles with better accuracy. You can build more planes and ships with those resources and they will be a better overall force. I maintain that the main armament for both ships are overrated for ship to ship, they look cool shooting though. Germany didn’t even have a deep water navy, it was illogical to have 2 large battleships without associated battle group. no matter what, U boats or destroyers would have been better. They had zero carriers, but two big battleships that did nothing. The Iowa’s are really the only ones that were used for what they were actually good at, a mobile artillery platform for amphibious landings. Ship to ship combat, not so much. I heard that when they used the South Dakota for target practice, Iowa and a couple other ships shot at her, apparently she was eventually torpedoed after being nuked (allegedly lifting her from the water) and shot at ineffectively at range.

stayros stamelos my premise is that they could have engaged with the US like the soviets did during the Cold War with success; little action after little action to achieve their goals. I believe that if they played it in a way that the USN pacific fleet did respond as you say. Then the USN would have been turned back by a stronger force than they were expecting as was largely the theme of the first year of pacific fighting. So you may get the automatic and very likely unsuccessful response but you don’t get the blank check that they got for such a resonating sneak attack on what was viewed as homeland. The blank check and instant approval of war fighting material is what doomed the IJN. The instant go ahead on the whole 2nd generation of fighting tools wouldn’t have happened without an attack like pearl.

@stayros stamelos Yamato's guns might have had longer range, but it was more than offset by the fact that Iowa would be over the horizon at that distance. Attempting to use visual targeting at that range wouldn't work nearly as well as radar. The float planes Yamato carried were supposed to be spotters but Iowa would never be caught in daylight without air cover.

stayros stamelos o;

YaaaaMaaaaToooo kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZx8ec5-08_ZhJ8.html

They actual wreck is a tad hard to raise to fight in space.....it’s a shattered hulk

@@alexius23 It's a reference to the 70's anime Star Blazers. (it's terrible, avoid at all costs)

@@Frostfly The original version is really bad. The American version is just as bad. The remade version that came out a few years ago is actually pretty good.

@@WannabeWRX I concurr, I highly encourage people to check it out. It's quite the nice Space Opera

A plan was so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it Naruto?

As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

Does it involve a flag?

Is it so cunning that you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel?

Would you recognize a cunning plan if it painted itself purple, danced atop a harpsichord and sang "Clever Plans are Here Again"?

I also commanded USCGC NORTHWIND, a polar icebreaker built in 1944. She was a member of a class of 7 ships, plus the Canadian LABRADOR, built to the same plans and scantlings. Some of these ships were lend leased to the USSR during WWII, and all of them lived very long lives. My NORTHWIND was reengined once, and she worked in the ice every year of her life except for the year she was reengined. I add this to my comment on INGHAM, because the USCG has a history of taking good care of our ships, and they last for many years beyond what their designers expected. And there are a number of Cutters that would qualify for any standards used by Drachinifel to decide which ships to feature. In the meantime, thanks and mahalo for the great and extensive research that goes into these "Guides". As one interested in all ships, and having trained in square rigged sail in USCGC EAGLE, ex-HORST WESSEL, -another recommendation for featuring- I find every one of these Guides that I have watched to be not only well researched but presented in a very seamanlike way. Bravo Zulu. Captain Joe

@@josephwubboldiii9284, Your comments have stimulated my interest in Coast Guard Cutters Captain Joe. Time to get educated, Thank you

@@MW-bi1pi I also commanded USCGC RELIANCE, the lead ship in a class of 210' Cutters all named for desirable human qualities. e.g. CONFIDENCE. There is no PRURIENCE, nor a CHASTITY. Almost all of them are still in commission after more than 50 years, having had a major refit. The first batch had a CODAG plant. By the time I was RELIANCE, the gas turbines had been removed. They all have a flight deck, but no hangar. When a helicopter is strapped down on the flight deck, the stability characteristics change dramatically. These ships will roll, pitch , heave, yaw, all at the same time. Although the Good Captain loves the crew and ship under his or her command, RELIANCE was the hardest ship to love of the six I commanded. I tell you all of this, in case you are looking for a good Cutter with which to start your education on Coast Guard Cutters. Thank you for a most interesting series. Captain Joe

you know what ironic , Vietnam coast guard using ex American coast guard ship that used to patrol it coast during Vietnam war the Hamilton 4000t ship + another Hamilton gona be sold to us this year lol , they are great coast guard ship and those 4000t gona made the Chinese coast guard rethink befor raming our coast guard ship lol

@@inouelenhatduy Jerry, thank you for your note. The irony of this does not escape me. Further, retired USCG Patrol boats are used by Sea Shepherd. Regardless of ones opinion of whaling and poaching, the Sea Shepherd approach of fomenting collisions and near collisions to make the point flies in the face of all of my command at sea, the avoidance of collision, and the rescue of the mariner in distress. My first command at sea was one of the sisters to one of the former Patrol boats, of the 95' class. The HAMILTONs are complex ships, even today, and require good maintenance. Please take good care of them, for they all served us well for many years. The shipyard facilities at the former Subic Bay base, should, if still intact, serve you and them well. Captain Joe

Well, part of the reason that birthed for example the ten-go missions was (if I remember the records correctly) that emperor asked something along the lines of "and what will the navy contribute" even tho they knew they had no supplies and no chance in hell at the end of the war... One of the only steady supplies on Yamato seemed to be good food (which a lot of other ships lacked) and lots and lots and lots of liquor, because they all knew they were going on a suicide mission.

Shinano got moved because Yokosuka was being hit routinely by air raids. It was either risk getting her sunk by bombers or risk submarine attack. And since the IJN took submarines a lot less seriously than aircraft... Moving her got her killed, but they at least had a legitimate reason for doing it.

pudding it not the emperor comment , more like the army which made japan navy to decide a ten-go mission , cause remember japan navy and army hate each other during ww2 lol

They were going to arrive next Tuesday.

The issue was Shinano has been photographed by a recon bomber that the Japanese knew about and Shinano was ordered to move to Kure to complete fitting out. Shinano’s captain requested that the ship not be moved as her watertight doors had not been fitted, many holes in the bulkheads for wires and etc. had not been sealed and bailing and fire fighting systems were inoperable. His request was denied and less than a day after Shinano set sail USS Archerfish sent her to the bottom with 4 torpedo hits

I think the even greater issue was lack of trained aviators. For much of the war the IJN had more flight decks than air groups.

MakeMeThinkAgain: That is correct. By the time Shinano was commissioned and on her sea trials, there was very little left of the Imperial Japanese army air arm in both planes, and experienced pilots. Also, the Japanese could not match the American R/D on new combat aircraft, and by '44, the Corsairs and Hellcats were making mince meat of the Zero. By '45 they had the KI-61, and KI-100 which which stunned the Americans in durability, maneuverability and both low/high altitude combat ability, but it was far too late.

The Swordfish was a 1930s bi-plane, not a World War I bi-plane. Then again bi-planes were pretty much relics of World War I, but the Swordfish could still go about 100 km/h faster than any bi-plane from World War I.

Shinano was so flawed that the Japanese intended to use that monster as an "auxiliary" carrier, not a fleet, or front-line carrier. The conversion was probably a half-fast endeavor made necessary by the deteriorating strategic position; IOW they were desperate AF for any available weapon.

It was their pilot training program that was the Japanese fleets downfall. They trained a few hundred pilots per year and were not able to keep the level of training when they realized (too late) that they needed pilots in the tens of thousands per year. The US had a plan in place from 1940 to rapidly upgrade their pilot training programs, some completing before the war broke out. After Pearl the training of US pilots got better over time while the Japanese decreased rapidly. In the Campaign for Saipan and Guam; the Japanese committed more naval power than they had at any other time during the war but achieved little due to the vast difference between the quality of pilots.

Bismarck: 2000 men and 50000 Tons of steel 🤘

@@christophpoll784 So.... Less then the Yamato.

The official objective of the Battle of Samar was to disrupt the US landing, but the TRUE objective was to destroy the American secret weapon: the USS Johnston. Nothing less than a fleet lead by the Yamato itself could match such a weapon.

Yamato: "No battleship can drive me from the field." Johnson: "I am no battleship."

@@christophpoll784 biplane 👌👌👌👌👌

There’s nothing incredible about the Yamato being a target practice. It’s a pathetic end to a much hyped and lauded “super” ship.

If they had put these ships to better usage, both individually and as part of a larger strategic plan, I think they could've made a huge difference. The Japanese instead tried to protect them and lost the bulk of their fleet in piece-meal engagements and poorly implemented plans so by the time they did use them, it was already too late to make any real difference.

@@tyree9055 The real issue was that battleships IN GENERAL were obsolete and wasteful by WWII, the Yamatos are far from unique in this aspect (they simply get singled out for it).

@@bkjeong4302 I disagree quite frankly. Just because a piece of equipment is old, doesn't mean that it has no value. The question is how to use it. Nothing surpassed the battleship in terms of it's shore bombardment capability (except perhaps those rocket launching carriers - which I don't know enough about their range and accuracy to comment upon). But there's no better defense for your carriers than a battleship and its huge AA compliment in a fleet operation. If you blunder into one another at night or are trying to take another fleet out in a surface battle, they were still the kings (unless the waterway was too restricted). Simply put, everything has a value and a purpose!

@@tyree9055 No just no. Battleships are NOT good at defending carriers compared to other, cheaper alternatives. A battleship’s AA capability is in large part due to its size, and because of square-cube law a ship’s displacement increases much faster than the available deck space for AA; building, say, more CLAAs would get you a similar level of AA protection while using less resources. And then there is the fact AA in general has been overhyped; even as late as July 1945, the most effective and primary air defence of navies was CAP launched off carriers, NOT AA. And why are you assuming battleships are needed to defend carriers against surface attack, when the only carriers surface ships can reasonably catch are the slow-ass CVEs? If you actually run into an enemy surface fleet while in charge of a fast carrier strike force, you’re too incompetent to be in charge in the first place. As for shore bombardment; there are PLENTY of cases where battleships proved unnecessary in this role (including a few where destroyers actually did a better job due to being more able and more willing to get up close and directly open up at enemy fortifications), and even if it was true that battleships were needed for shore bombardment, building ANY new battleships leading up to WWII would be still pointless when there are already more than enough older battleships.

Damn, are you a naval engineer? If not, you should be

@@micfail2 how is the scope of job in naval engineering?

She should have been made into a museum ship, instead of being sunk as a target. It's amazing you were able to board a ship that sank a......sort of Yamato class battleship. You are very lucky

@@metaknight115 Well, Intrepid deserves much of the credit for killing Musashi and she’s still around.

Only they underestimate the US building power. They can build fleet carriers as fast as IJN convert their converted carriers. And US built escort carriers like pouring rice from the rice box

You give a lot of credit to Japanese planning. however. The Japanese did not start an escort carrier building program until 1944, the U.S. started in 1939/40. The U.S./British concept was for convoy protection and sub hunting in the Atlantic. Re-supply of land bases and fleet carriers and support of fleet carriers evolved quickly from there. It would seem logical that if your Japanese strategic theory is true, escort carrier production would have started before or earlier in the war. It would also seem logical that given the losses of Japanese fleet carriers, and the inability to replace them due to time and material shortages becoming a real issue, escort carriers would seem the only viable solution. Especially after seeing the success of escort carriers in the U.S. and British fleets. Also, by the time the Shinano would become available, there were virtually no more Japanese fleet carriers to re-supply., Kido Butai had been destroyed two years earlier at Midway. By that time Japan was pretty much fighting a defensive war. The Shinano would be used to re-supply the remaining island bases in a last ditch effort to support the rings of defense of the home islands. Of the two scenario's, yours and mine, one should ask, which has the support of documented history behind it? I am not saying your theory is not sound strategy, it obviously worked for the Allies, I am just saying I do not think it actually happened that way in Japan.

If only they had a pilot training program worthy of the name. The Great Mariana’s Turkey shoot showed how impotent Japanese Naval airpower had become by 1944.

@@6handicap604 The Japanese actually put a surprising number of new carriers (and not just conversions) into service in WWII. The real killer was the loss of pilots.

Exactly, all the supposed fear of their guns and no one even knew how big they were.

Well Japan likes their secrets... Just remember not to mention WW2 if you ever visit Japan, there is a chance the person won't even know it happened, let alone their war crimes.

Assuming that the admiral was actually telling the truth to the interrogators, of course ...

Well, they didn't guard their war plans very well... "AF is running low on fresh water" ...and so went 4/6 of their fleet carriers at Midway.

I think it was Kurita himself who was interviewed: he wasn’t told about the actual size of the guns, but he figured it out himself.

I don't like the British accent and the missed pronounced wording. Please do some research before recording, and get it right!

@@earli3693 *mispronounced*-- Please do upgrade your grammar skills before belittling others.

@@earli3693 you don't like the accent of a guy from Great Britain??? Would you like him to a Japanese accent instead?

@@dsloop3907 😆

@@earli3693 Learn how to spell before you bitch about others.

Typical stupidity and incompetence of the U.S. Navy.

@@JBrandeis1 Or just general fog of war?

When a submarine Commander reports having sunk a specific enemy aircraft carrier by name and is not believed by his superiors, who were not there, that is incompetence and stupidity, not "fog of war."

@@JBrandeis1 Shinano was the most secretive of the japanese superbattleships. There have only ever been 2 photographs of her in existence and it was not until well after the war that the ship was known to have existed. Granted, they should have listened to Enright, but he claimed to have sunk a carrier weighing over 60,000 tons when no such ship was known of. Just to put some perspective in here.

And one of those photos was taken by a civilian as she left port, for the only time. It wasn't till after the war for that photo to come to light. I think they were both after launching. Upon penalty of death, no one involved with Shinano's construction was allowed to talk about it.

The explosion of yamato was said to Destroyed a numerous of aircraft

That's true of almost any AA fire. (How many of the attacking planes were damaged? That may be a better metric of AA effectiveness).

@@stewartmillen7708 in the Japanese film on the sinking of the Yamato so many USN planes are shown to being shot down.....

@@alexius23 and in inglorious bastard Hitler dies

I heard it was around 80 planes. Not 10.

Yamato sleep 3000 meters under the water...

@@WadcaWymiaru well...that just proves.... you cannot put brains in a statue

@@sexygirlove20 What?

More interestingly... Imagine if someone leaked the Tillman plans to Japan and said the us were making 4 of them... Imagine the Yamato we would have got.. 24" guns, 30 inch armor.. 12500tons haha I'm just speculating. But it would have been interesting

@Bjorn the overly, excessively enslaved singaporean as long as it can keep up with the battle line sounds good 😁 to be honest I've often thought it would be rather interesting for someone to have built a barge that looked like a giant big mean battleship, but just as a decoy of sorts, especially In the Pacific, calmer seas. Essentially park a destroyer in its butt for propulsion and steering, when the battle starts sail ahead and towards the enemy, aim all the 2mm thick dummy turrets at whatever the biggest ship in the enemy fleet is, then disconnect the destroyer send out an ass load of torpedos and leg it, they all concentrate fire on the big scary ship while the destroyer escapes, giving your fleet substantially less counter fire to deal with while actually attacking the enemy. Haha almost an opposite trojan horse 😁😂

Oh I forgot to mention, use a barge so that the draught is shallow enough that torpedoes will go straight under it and continue on

@Bjorn the overly, excessively enslaved singaporean yeah that'd be great, a full spread of 1200 long Lance's 😂 enemy fleet go bye bye 😂😂😂

G3s and N3s you what mate?

To be fair, even with that low steel quality the armour design was good enough that it took a lot of effort to kill these two. It’s certainly better than that other famous Axis battleship which had vastly superior armour quality but horrific armour design.... The crappiness of most Japanese AA guns is probably a much bigger issue than the blast damage from the main guns. It’s not like the main guns make much sense in fending off aircraft anyways. Edit; also all BB main guns tended to injure people and suppress AA guns, so that’s a battleship problem in general.

well if japan have develop and used 40mm bofor version it will be way better , too bad it only have the bad 25mm , but the 127 and 100mm was not bad aa gun at all , the only bad thing was the 25mm , the 127mm was mediocre but still effective , the 100mm was great but come online during the war only and so was not equip for the yamato

inoue jerry Yeah the 100mm gun actually was a decent AA weapon. The A-150s would have been fitted with them if they weren’t cancelled. Japan actually managed to reverse-engineer Bofors (and various Allied small arms). But the factory producing them got blown up and they never managed to produce them again.

Bk Jeong -Those overweight Japanese "hotels" cannot hold a candle to either Bismarck or Tirpitz ! I cannot imagine Bismarck fleeing outright from destroyers and destroyer escorts, while just ahead is a massive (and helpless ) transport fleet) awaiting ! Bismarck score - 1 battlecruiser sunk and 1 battleship hammered and forced to withdraw then forcing what was almost the entire British Atlantic fleet to chase her and stop her ( note they did not sink her, the Germans scuttled her ) What was Yamato's (or her sister's ) tally . A big fat ZERO ! Tirpitz took 3 direct hits from 6 ton Tallboy bombs to sink her and it still took 15 minutes before she was gone. Yamato probably would have blown ski high with just one

Thomas Mattuski First, the reason the IJN fled at Samar had mostly to do with American air supremacy (not just from the Taffy 3 escort carriers, but also Taffy 1 and 2) more than anything else. Yes the destroyers and DEs put up a hard fight. But they did go down. But the IJN fled anyway because it’s suicide to put a surface fleet against aircraft: even though Taffy 3 was caught without anti-ship equipment, there was nothing stopping Taffy 1 and 2 from rearming (and indeed they did use aerial torpedoes during the battle). And even if they didn’t rearm in time, the Japanese didn’t know that. Second, how on earth is crew actions relevant to the ship itself? By that logic HMS Glorious is a horrible ship because she was lost due to human stupidity, even though as a carrier she was far superior to literally every battleship of WWII. Third, you really need to look up how much of a glass cannon the Bismarcks were. In terms of speed, targeting, and gun stats they’re quite competitive, but their horribly outdated armour scheme makes them vulnerable compared to other battleships of the era. They’re a case of (relatively) poorly designed ships performing better than expected (a big part of which is due to the British holding the idiot ball), NOT a case of well-designed ships faring well. TLDR: combat records are based heavily on factors other than how well the ships are designed, and therefore it is perfectly possible for a better-designed ship to perform worse than a worse-designed ship. (The Iowas were the best-designed battleships of all but horrifically underperformed, for example, only getting a training cruiser and a destroyer because Spruance called off the carrier attacks that had damaged these ships previously)

I agree, I wasn't trying to say they were badly protected, only that the scheme had a few flaws and that it wasn't as impressive as it looks on paper. Conversely, on paper, it's insane well defended, so it 'goes down' to 'merely' very well defended.

Drachinifel I understand. Again, I do love your work, and I'm very glad you didn't indulge in Yamato hype like too many people, books, and even documentaries do. She was a very powerful battleship, but not without her flaws, and your assessment was measured and fair. Please keep up the great work!

while I would agree that bizmark might not have been using its waight as efectivly when it came to armoring the superstructure, the belt armor was only penetrated 3 or 4 times out of over 300 hits by 14 or 16 inch shells. likewise it was never compromised by torpedos, as they were all pre detonated by the auxilery fuel tanks. if you haven't seen it, watch james camerons expedition to the bizmark on youtube. they did a detailed analisys of the entire hull from the belt down, including the torpedo holes.

The reason Bismarck's main belt wasn't penetrated very much was because the British ships were pumping close-range, horizontal gunfire into her, which was the exact situation Bismarck's armor scheme was designed for. And since that armor scheme (turtleback deck + incremental armor) dates back to WW1 dreadnoughts, it would've been hard for even the Kreigsmarine to screw it up. So Bismarck being able to take a lot of short-range fire wasn't as impressive as it sounds. In fact, I'd be shocked if Bismarck didn't tank a bunch of gunfire in those conditions. Not that this meant much since half of Bismarck's main guns were taken out and the other half were crippled, if I remember correctly, within the first 15 minutes of the battle, rendering her what navies call "dead in the water", and she was totally silenced around half an hour later. The rest of the "battle" was a corpse-kicking party as the Brits pumped Bismarck's hulk full of shells until she sank. That's a really awful performance for a ship of Bismarck's size and weight facing two smaller battleships, and it clearly shows how bad Bismarck's armor scheme was. After all, if you're going to optimize your ship for close-range gun battles (which is already an outdated design goal), shouldn't you make sure your main armament and all your ship's vitals are extremely well protected from incoming fire? Close-range gunfire hits a lot harder than long-range fire since the shells haven't lost as much momentum over the course of their flight to the target, and a battleship without its guns is completely helpless. So if anything, the Kriegsmarine should've made sure her guns were as well-protected as possible (AKA what the Japanese did with the Yamatos). That the Kriegsmarine didn't design Bismarck's turrets to withstand the same kind of close-range fire that they designed her belt for was criminally incompetent and completely self-defeating. Once Bismarck's guns were gone, it didn't matter how much fire her belt could take since she couldn't defend herself: The British could safely shoot the crap out of her until she inevitably died, however long that took. Her fate was sealed by her poor armor scheme. (Also, if the British had actually focused their guns on holing her below the waterline instead of smashing her above-water hull and superstructure to pieces, she would've gone down quicker. Like I said, it was a corpse-kicking party, and the British weren't aware of the details of Bismarck's design so they stuck to their doctrine of closing the range with the enemy, meaning most of their shots hit above the waterline.) Finally, while I haven't looked at it, I've heard some very serious criticisms of James Cameron's Bismarck analysis, especially compared to the conclusions of actual experts who've dived the site, which is why I've avoided it. If I wanted a serious analysis of Bismarck's wreck and what it tells us about her final battle, an expedition led by a movie director isn't the first source I'd turn to.

1Korlash It still sank.

XD

Also pointless, though that applies to their Allied and other Axis contemporaries too.

Bubby theCuck she is on the list. :)

I live in Deer Park, less than 5 miles also. I hope he hurries up with video before the Texas sinks!

The Texas is leaking and could soon sink. Please hurry with the video before the Texas sinks into the mud at her berth.

Frank Abler The water is too shallow.

Roger Hinman sure I'll add it to the list

That's not opsec, because they don't know the specs either. They destroyed all of the information, even for their own use, out of sheer spite, not realizing the idiocy of doing so. Battleships were obsolete long before the end of the war--and American battleship design had already surpassed the Yamato-class with the Iowa-class. All they did was to destroy the records of their own accomplishment.

@Megas Pantelos Japan lost the war. Destroying the records was pure spite.

@Megas Pantelos Maybe in WoW but in real life not so.

It was the USA's idea though. And it limited their main rival, as well as breaking the Anglo-Japanese alliance, while allowing the USN to achieve parity with the RN without a costly arms race.

Plus don't forget the US Congress was stingy with money in that period. The Washington Naval Treaty meant the US Navy wouldn't have the money or the need to build more warships.

That’s more a testament to good armour layout (especially when it came to the deck armour) and the sheer amount of armour, which more than compensated for any reduction in steel quality and meant these ships were still well-protected against bomb or shell hits.

KMS Blucher: Hold my Bier!

Hubris. The captain "knew" how shit american torpedoes were from early war patrols and reports on captured examples, and so all but ignored the hits (of the fixed, actually working torpedoes with bigger warheads) as not a threat until Shinano was listing quite noticeably, and much of the damage control system was still under construction when they kicked her out of the dock to make room for more construction

technically not "most" I agree as to what you are seeing.

I almost expected you to call that thing a Japanese torpedo boat.

@@bkjeong4302 wait...do you see torpedo boats?

@@theirnkamchatka3638 No, I do not see torpedo boats.

Luckily drach's subscribers will know which ships he's referring to

Thank you for posting this, most of the times that I have encountered those names have been when I'm reading, and I honestly did not know the correct pronunciation until I read your comment.

@@micfail2 japanese is actually rather simple in terms of pronounciation as each sylable is independent. So I is always (well, almost always) "ee" E "eh" A "ah" U "oo" and so on, regardless of whats around them. If only their spelling was as easy to memorize XD

was the Alaska actually classed as a cruiser?

@@josephhardwicke6344 there has been a lot of debate on this topic....the USN defined it as a cruiser...

The Prince of Wales was doomed from the start. Poor armor over propellor shafts and quad turrets that didnt work. The sailors assigned to her called her Jonah.

MrKKUT1984 let’s change the artillery to paint balls for some fun

If any had survived the war, they’d likely have ended up with Nagato and Prinz Eugen at Bikini.

@@mebsrea rather unfortunate but true I suspect

@@MrKKUT1984 They’d have made for epic dive trips, though!

@@mebsrea That was a shame too. The Nagato could've been a good museum ship! 😅

David Sachs Who the hell used that gun?

@@kms_scharnhorst Sucks for them.

They later put 100mm guns, but without VT-1 equivalent fuse.... welll.

KlunkerRider It went badly.

Excellent anti retrospective point. Very well put.

I can link it to you if you want :)

Japan never really stopped being Imperial Japan.

Maril005 sure :)

A number of naval histories cover the strategic thinking behind them, 'Kaigun' provides the most detailed explanation of the thinking though.

There's also the fact that in the extremely successful anime "Space Battleship Yamato", originally made in 1974, Yamato is armed with a giant laser cannon of mass destruction. Sound Familiar?

If anything the Yamatos were basically the exact opposite of the Tarkin Doctrine. The Tarkin Doctrine is focused on building intimating super weapons and showing them off to threaten enemies into submission. The Yamatos were not shown off, but kept in secrecy (they were never the symbol of the IJN’s power; that fell to the Nagatos), specifically so they would be underestimated by the enemy.

More like 150 years, Railguns are having some serious teething problems.

No, it is likely to see them within 30 years at most and the teething problems are over-inflated.

There are two us ships right now with working railguns. There is plans to install them now next year on more ships. Both of the zumwalt class ships have railguns.

@@janis317 yea, they finally managed to make the projectiles affordable but now the gun barrel needs to be replaced every 7 shots at full charge. And as you can imagine, railgun barrels aren't cheap.

That would probably be fun for either a Halloween or April Fools joke.